Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo

Scripture in Transition Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor John J. Collins The Divinity Scho...

Author: Anssi Voitila | Jutta Jokiranta (Eds.)

23 downloads 512 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Scripture in Transition

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

John J. Collins The Divinity School, Yale University Associate Editors

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen

Hindy Najman Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto Advisory Board

j. duhaime – a. hilhorst – p.w. van der horst a. klostergaard petersen – m.a. knibb j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers – g. stemberger e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp VOLUME 126

Scripture in Transition Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo

Edited by

Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Scripture in transition : essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo/edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384–2161 ; v. 126) Includes index. ISBN 978–90–04–16582–3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Hebrew language—Grammar. 2. Greek language, Biblical—Grammar. 3. Bible. O.T. Greek—Versions—Septuagint. 4. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Language, style. 5. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Translating. 6. Bible. O.T. Exodus—Language, style. 7. Bible. O.T. Exodus—Translating. 8. Dead Sea scrolls. I. Sollamo, Raija. II. Voitila, Anssi. III. Jokiranta, Jutta. PJ4553.S37 2008 221.4’8—dc22 2008006511

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978 90 04 16582 3 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................... Jutta Jokiranta and Anssi Voitila Bibliography of Raija Sollamo ................................................ Abbreviations ...........................................................................

xi xxv xxxiii

PART ONE

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION The Renderings of the Hebrew Preposition l in Predicate Expressions Denoting Transition and Becoming Something in LXX Genesis and Exodus ............................................... Katri Tenhunen The Book of Joshua in the Vulgate .......................................... Seppo Sipilä Flora In Cantico Canticorum Towards a More Precise Characterisation of Translation Technique in the lxx of Song of Songs .............................. Bénédicte Lemmelijn LXX’s Rendering of Hebrew Proper Names and the Characterisation of Translation Technique of the Book of Judges .............................................................................. Hans Ausloos “Statute” or “Covenant”? Remarks on the Rendering of the word qj in the Greek Ben Sira ............................................ Marko Marttila Prepositional Phrases in the Septuagint of Ezekiel .................. Katrin Hauspie Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-Oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter ................... Theo A. W. van der Louw An Ear for an Eye—Lay Literacy and the Septuagint ............. Cameron Boyd-Taylor Transcribing, Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint ............................ Benjamin G. Wright III

1 17

27

53 73 89 107 127 147

vi

contents

Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies ..................................................................................... Jan Joosten The Promulgation of the Pentateuch in Greek according to the Letter of Aristeas .................................................................... Arie van der Kooij Light from 1QIsaa on the Translation Technique of the Old Greek Translator of Isaiah ..................................................... Eugene Ulrich Isaiah 8:23–9:6 and Its Greek Translation .................................. John J. Collins The Sour Grapes: Ezekiel 18 ...................................................... Johan Lust The Greek Pentateuch and 4 Maccabees ................................... Robert J. V. Hiebert Not Quite Angels: A Commentary on Psalm 8 in Greek ........... Albert Pietersma A Textual-Exegetical Commentary on Three Chapters in the Septuagint .............................................................................. Emanuel Tov

163 179 193 205 223 239 255 275

PART TWO

TEXTUAL HISTORY Why Should We Care about the Original Text? ......................... R. Timothy McLay Old Greek and Later Revisors: Can We Always Distinguish Them? ..................................................................................... Peter J. Gentry On the Name of God in the Old Greek Schøyen Leviticus Papyrus ................................................................................... Kristin De Troyer Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique ..................................................... Adrian Schenker

291 301 329

339

contents A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek— Deconstructing the Textus Receptus ........................................... Anneli Aejmelaeus How to Read the Greek Text behind the Sahidic Coptic ........... Elina Perttilä Different Sequences between the Septuagint and Antiochene Texts ........................................................................................ Mª Victoria Spottorno New Hexaplaric Readings to the LXX 1 Kings ......................... Natalio Fernández Marcos Gedaliah’s Murder in 2 Kings 25:25 and Jeremiah 41:1–3 ........ Juha Pakkala The Greek Vorlage of the Ethiopic Text of Ezekiel ...................... Michael A. Knibb The Nature of Lucian’s Revision of the Text of Greek Job ....... Claude E. Cox Introductions to the LXX Pentateuch: Keeping Things Updated .................................................................................. Robert A. Kraft

vii 353 367 379 391 401 413 423 443

PART THREE

HEBREW AND GREEK LINGUISTICS The Greek of the Bible: Translated Greek or Translation Greek? ..................................................................................... Georg Walser Septuagint Lexicography and Hebrew Etymology ..................... Takamitsu Muraoka Die Frage nach dem Dativ in lokativischer Bedeutung im Neuen Testament .................................................................... Lars Aejmelaeus The Greek Traditions of Proper Names in the Book of First Esdras and the Problems of Their Transfer into a Modern Translation in the Light of a New Finnish Version ................ Tapani Harviainen

449 463 471

485

viii

contents PART FOUR

DEAD SEA SCROLLS Shifts in Covenantal Discourse in Second Temple Judaism ........ Sarianna Metso Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls ............................................ Martti Nissinen The Place of Prophecy in Coming out of Exile: The Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls ..................................................................... George J. Brooke Ruth und Tamar als fremde Frauen in dem Davidischen Stammbaum ........................................................................... Pekka Särkiö David and His Two Women: An Analysis of Two Poems in the Psalms Scroll from Qumran (11Q5) ....................................... Bodil Ejrnæs Qumranic Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis ................................ Mika S. Pajunen The Temple Scroll: Is It More or Less Biblical? ......................... Magnus Riska Dwellers at Qumran: Reflections on Their Literacy, Social Status, and Identity ................................................................. Juhana markus Saukkonen ‘Canon’ and Identity at Qumran: An Overview and Challenges for Future Research ................................................................ Hanne von Weissenberg Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5:24–34: Insights from Purity Laws from the Dead Sea Scrolls .......................... Cecilia Wassen

497 513 535 551 575 591 607 615 629 641

contents

ix

PART FIVE

PRESENT-DAY ‘Reclaiming’ the Septuagint for Jews and Judaism ...................... Leonard Greenspoon Teaching and Studying Biblical Languages in the Classroom and on the Web: Developments and Experiments at the University of Helsinki since the 1960s ................................... Raimo Hakola and Jarmo Kiilunen The Bible among Scriptures ....................................................... Heikki Räisänen Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................ Index of Modern Authors ...........................................................

661

671 687 703 735

PREFACE Jutta Jokiranta and Anssi Voitila It is our great joy and privilege to present this Festschrift in honour of Professor Raija Sollamo. The volume celebrates Raija’s rich career in academic life, her research, teaching and her career in administration, as well as her wider impact in making biblical studies known and accessible for the general audience. Raija Sollamo was born on the 9th of December 1942 in Padasjoki in southern Finland. She began her studies in theology in 1961 at the University of Helsinki with the intention of becoming a teacher of religion. She received her M.Th. in 1967. Professor Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen noted the talented young student, suggested she continue her academic work and supervised her doctoral dissertation. He himself had recently published the Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (1965), which was a methodological breakthrough in the study of the Septuagint syntax. SoisalonSoininen also commenced a major project for the study of the translation technique of the lxx Pentateuch in the 1970s. These, together with Raija’s interest in languages, inspired Raija to choose an academic career. She defended her dissertation, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, in 1979, and received her doctoral degree in 1980. In her dissertation, Raija carried on and developed Soisalon-Soininen’s method. Her description of the different translation techniques and her analysis of the so-called hebraisms have been particularly important. Since then, she has concentrated on syntactical issues in the lxx Pentateuch, the infinitive absolute, the pleonastic use of pronouns in relative clauses, and the repetition of possessive pronouns, making use of the material collected in the project from the 1970s. Her monograph, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint, defined more closely the character of different translators from the perspective of word order and thus confirmed the value of the method. The larger goal of this pioneering project is the writing of a Septuagint syntax, a task that now lies ahead. As an outstanding and inspiring teacher, Raija follows in the footsteps of Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen. Together with Anneli Aejmelaeus, she has given her knowledge and guidance to two generations of Septuagint

xii

preface

scholars at ‘the Helsinki School’, Seppo Sipilä and Anssi Voitila; Elina Perttilä and Katri Tenhunen. In 1993–95, she led the project “Translation Technique of the Septuagint.” Like her Doktor vater, Raija has highly valued and cherished international connections and co-operation. She has invited scholars to Helsinki and hosted congresses (the Nordic Congress for Septuagint Studies, 1994; the IOSCS international meeting, 1999). Many of those long-standing colleagues as well as younger Septuagint scholars have contributed to this volume. A very specialised and demanding field is not always fashionable; Raija has done much to make it more attractive. One demonstration of Raija’s innovative attitude is the commencement of Qumran studies in Helsinki. She held her first Qumran seminar in 1988–89, at a time when the number of published DJD volumes was still quite low and not all manuscript evidence was available. The seminar was filled with enthusiastic students writing their Master’s theses—among them, Sarianna Metso—who were successful in translating some of the Qumran texts into Finnish. The first translation was published in 1990 and was followed by an expanded edition in 1997. Raija insisted that every student should start with the basic evidence: what is preserved in the fragments; what it actually says; the special features of Qumran Hebrew. At the same time, she was confident that students can actually learn to ‘read and write’, to judge for themselves between waws and yods in the photographs and to practice their skills in Hebrew as well as various methodologies in biblical studies. Since then, other Qumran seminars have taken place, and Raija has both invited distinguished scholars to Helsinki and sent her students abroad to study. Raija can be characterized as ‘the first lady’ in many ways. When she received her professorship in 1982, she was the first woman professor in the Theological Faculty. In 1992, she became the first woman Dean at the University of Helsinki. Another historical event took place when she was elected First Vice-Rector at the University of Helsinki in 1998, again as the first woman to hold any Rectorship at the University. Raija has paved the way for future generations and made it easier for women in her field. Women’s studies have been close to Raija’s heart; she was the first chair of the Association for Women’s Studies in Finland in 1988–90. She would probably not characterize herself as a hard-line feminist yet she has been a pioneer in many areas and an encouraging model for many, both men and women. Her book on women in the Hebrew Bible, Raamatun naisia (Helsinki: Kirjaneliö, 1983), collected essays published in Kotimaa, the weekly church-oriented magazine. In

preface

xiii

its preface, Raija remarks that, although she attempts to write on these women comprehensibly, she hopes not to compromise on the scholarly level of the essays; she is simply studying and explaining the biblical texts that deal with these women. This suits well the ‘moderate and practical feminist’ as she was described in an article celebrating her Vice-Rectorship (Riitta Pyysalo, “Raija Sollamo: Helsingin yliopiston ensimmäinen vararehtori, nainen, teologi ja pappi,” Suomen Kuvalehti 28 [10.7.1998], 50–53). Raija’s period in administration—both at the Faculty (1992–98) and as Vice-Rector (1998–2003)—revealed the negotiator and diplomat in Raija, not afraid of changes and challenges. As Vice-Rector (in a university with over 35,000 students and 7000 faculty and staff ), she was responsible for developing teaching and libraries—tasks that also had a lot to do with her own field. Naturally, administrative duties reduced the time she was able to devote herself to research. However, during these years, she raised the second generation of doctoral students in Qumran studies ( Jutta Jokiranta, Juhana Saukkonen and Hanne von Weissenberg) and was actively involved in research projects and congresses. When the Department of Biblical Studies was nominated a Centre of Excellence of the Academy of Finland (2000–2005), Raija was leading one of its projects, Intertestamental Literature. In 2003, a group of Nordic scholars and students managed to pool their resources and formed the Nordic Network in Qumran Studies; Raija has been the Finnish leader in the steering committee. Some contributors to this volume come from this context (Bodil Ejrnæs, Cecilia Wassen). Retirement has also opened new opportunities for future work. Raija’s new project “Conflicting Identities: Social and Religious Identities in Light of the Qumran Material from the Judaean Desert,” 2008–10, is funded by the Academy of Finland. In 2007, she was nominated as the President of IOSOT and will host the next meeting in Helsinki in 2010. Raija’s contribution to the Finnish Evangelical-Lutheran Church is perhaps most substantial in her work on the new Finnish translation of the Bible (published in 1992). She was involved in the project at its many stages, from the translation itself into its acceptance by the Church Synod. More recently, she has acted as the chair of the committee for translating the Apocrypha into Finnish. Raija also advanced the cause of opening the ministry for women pastors, which was realised in 1986. Her articles in Finnish have appealed to both secular and clerical audiences and dealt with a great variety of topics, from the Septuagint to feminist theology, from creation to heavenly journeys in Enoch.

xiv

preface

But let us go back to Padasjoki, Raija’s hometown and the location of her summer house, which is even mentioned by some contributors in this volume. Raija has hosted there many guests, giving foreign visitors a glimpse of the Finnish countryside and its traditions. Many have also come to know Matti, Raija’s husband, as a patient and ever present support in Raija’s life. In Matti and Raija’s own words, these spouses truly complement each other. Also their two daughters, Taina and Terhi, and two grandchildren are a continuous source of joy in Raija’s life. Padasjoki has served well as a family retreat but it is more than that. It has been the roots for a person that has a passion for learning; a small girl in the 1940s had limited access to reading material but education opened up possibilities that we now see realised and celebrated. The number of contributions to this volume is quite overwhelming, and demonstrate the affection held by many towards Raija over the course of many years. As the title, Scripture in Transition, indicates, the contributions deal with that period in which Scripture was not yet fixed; various writings and collections of writings were considered authoritative but their form was more or less in transition. The appearence of the first biblical translations are part of this transitional process. These translations provide us evidence and concrete examples of those textual traditions and interpretations that were in use in various communities. Furthermore, several biblical concepts, themes and writings were reinterpreted and actualised in the Dead Sea Scrolls, illuminating the transitions that took place in one faction of Judaism. The topics of the contributions are divided into five parts. In order to provide easy access to them for various readers in various disciplines and to highlight each contribution, we think the best way is to briefly introduce them all. Introduction to the Volume It is a matter of course that a book dedicated to Raija should commence with essays treating Translation and Interpretation—these are the themes of Part One. Six essays cover issues on the translation technique of the Septuagint. The studies by Katri Tenhunen and Seppo Sipilä studies are representative of the Helsinki School. Tenhunen scrutinises the translation of the Hebrew preposition l in the predicative position in Genesis and Exodus. She demonstrates where the translators take

preface

xv

into consideration the requirements of the target language and in which instances they have resorted to a more literal way of translating. Sipilä studies Jerome’s translation technique in the book of Joshua in the Vulgate. He analyses the renderings of the apodictic w and the causal yk conjunctions and comes to the conclusion that Jerome did not always follow the word-for-word method as he claims in his letter to Pammachius. Both Benedicte Lemmelijn and Hans Ausloos investigate lexical items that do not have a lexical meaning alone but carry other connotations as well. Lemmelijn’s contribution deals with the Greek translation of plants and other nomenclature in the rural landscape in the Song of Songs. Such terms carry poetical and metaphorical connotations, and Lemmelijn investigates whether the translator has understood the terms correctly and chosen equivalents that have the same connotations. It appears that, for the majority of words indicating Hebrew flora, the translator has rendered his Vorlage ‘faithfully’, not only from the semantic and lexical but sometimes even from the phonetic point of view. Similarly, Ausloos studies the translation of the proper names with an aetiological function in the book of Judges. Aetiologies often operate with textual characteristics that enable one to say something about the creativity of the translator. Usually, the translator of both the A- and B-texts is considered as following his Vorlage slavishly, but Ausloos discovers that the translator strives to give a meaningful rendering of the aetiologies, even though one would sometimes expect other choices. In the translation of the book of Ben Sira, the Greek word διαθήκη is used to render the Hebrew word qjo / hQ;j.u Marko Marttila investigates the reasons behind this since, in the lxx, διαθήκη is usually an equivalent to the Hebrew tyrb. According to Marttila, the translator did not always follow the practices of his predecessors and may have considered the concepts qj and tyrb similar in their meaning. Furthermore, διαθήκη seems to have denoted similar concepts as qj in Classical Greek. The following contribution also addresses questions of interpretation. Katrin Hauspie, in the footsteps of Raija Sollamo’s dissertation, studies semiprepositions in the translation of Ezekiel. She looks at them from the translator’s point of view but also inquires into the way a Greek-speaking reader might have understood them. Most of these expressions do not appear outside the lxx. The basic meaning of the semiprepositions would have been clear to the Greek reader, although it must have seemed odd.

xvi

preface

There is a clear tendency in current Septuagint studies to utilise the results of modern translation studies. Questions like the original setting, promoter(s), and the intention of the translation can be approached from new points of view. The following five contributions are related to this research. Theo van der Louw, himself a biblical translator, asks why translators apply transformations. Why was the literal translation not chosen? Behind every free translation stands a literal translation which was rejected. He gives various examples of translations, demonstrating the reasons that might explain the deviation from the literal translation; these are linguistic, stylistic, logical, communicative, cultural, and, finally, ideological (or theological). Cameron Boyd-Taylor calls for studies on the lxx that take into consideration the circumstances under which the translation had been created and the function for which it was intended; the social location of the translation was constitutive of its textual linguistic makeup. Taking the interlinear paradigm as his working hypothesis, he examines the Tabernacle Account in the mt and in the lxx. He concludes that part of the Greek text (Section B) is a later, parabiblical compilation of various materials, originally made for educational purposes and used in its present context to usurp an earlier, word-for-word translation. Similar questions are dealt with by Benjamin Wright. He studies the legend of the origins of the lxx as related in the Letter of Aristeas. Wright argues that the description is unhistorical and serves to provide an ideological foundation for moving from the best original text to a sacred and flawless translation. Originally, according to Wright, the Greek translation was intended to be subservient to the Hebrew text, and only later did it become an independent, sacred text of Alexandrian Jews. However, in his contribution, Jan Joosten argues that there are various weaknesses in the theory that the translation was originally intended to have a subservient position to its source, i.e., to be used with the Hebrew text, most likely in schools. Joosten puts forth several counterarguments against this; his main points are historical, linguistic and translation technical in nature. Arie van der Kooij poses the question of why, in the Letter of Aristeas, the translation of the Pentateuch is enthusiastically and publicly acclaimed and defended against any alteration. Van der Kooij understands these alterations as modifications of ideological significance. He demonstrates such an alteration by comparing the text of lxx Exodus 19:6a and its quotation in 2 Maccabees 2:17. The Exodus text speaks

preface

xvii

for the priesthood as a ruling class of the Jewish nation whereas 2 Maccabees makes a clear distinction between kingship and priesthood. The last part of the first section discusses more specifically issues of interpretation. Eugene Ulrich tackles the assumption that the Septuagint (Old Greek) translator of Isaiah did not understand his Hebrew Vorlage correctly. Ulrich seeks to reassess the translation technique by studying the large Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) from Qumran as the oldest and most direct evidence of the Hebrew text available. This manuscript now shows evidence of Hebrew forms, different from the mt, that are correctly translated in the Old Greek. All of this corrects our understanding of the transmission of texts and reminds us of the ‘manufacturing’ culture of texts and scrolls. John Collins surveys past and present understandings of the famous Isaiah prophecy of a child who is born “unto us” (Isaiah 8:23–9:6). Collins studies the meaning of the prophecy in its historical context in the 8th century b.c.e.; the passage was composed for Hezekiah’s coronation and expressed what ideal kingship is about. In the post-exilic period, this ideal was transformed into the expectation of a future king, the Messiah. The lxx translation of the passage is in many ways influenced by the Hellenistic context but, unlike it is often believed, does not increase its messianic implications. Johan Lust examines the meaning of the proverb “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” in Ezekiel 18:2 as well as the identity and whereabouts of its interlocutors. The proverb has been put in the mouth of the inhabitants of Israel during the period of Exile, and concerns the Exiles in Babylon. The inhabitants of Israel agree with its contents whereas the prophet does not; according to him, each generation is responsible for its own behaviour. Robert Hiebert investigates how 4 Maccabees, in comparison to other more or less contemporaneous sources, contributes to the transmission of Greek Pentateuchal traditions and their interpretation history. He focusses on four passages that are cited in this first century c.e. work and that make significant use of the Greek Pentateuch in support of the author’s contention that pious reason is the absolute master of passions. Albert Pietersma shows how the five principles of The Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint (SBLCS) are put into practice, with Psalm 8 as a sample case. The main principle, to which the other four are subordinate, is that the commentary makes a distinction

xviii

preface

between the text as produced and the text as received, i.e., the meaning of the original translation and the understanding of the later Greek reader. Emanuel Tov writes about what he calls “an exercise in method involving the writing of a commentary”. Differences between the lxx and the mt reflect either differences in the Vorlage or in the translator’s exegesis. Tov uses three chapters, Proverbs 1, Jeremiah 27, and 1 Samuel 1, to compare the different types of information derived from the lxx. He not only comments on inner-Septuagintal issues but also compares the lxx text with other textual traditions (mt, Qumran and Josephus). The chapters chosen from the Hebrew Bible testify to a complicated textual history. Tov shows the relevance of Septuagint research for the study of the Hebrew Scriptures, not only for textual criticism but also for literary criticism. The contributions in Part Two deal with Textual History of the Septuagint and of the Hebrew Bible from different angles. Timothy McClay wants to move scholarly attention from the ‘original text’ to the individual manuscripts and their use and transmission. The search for the ‘original text’ is based on an assumption about the authority of the author. Trying to reconstruct the Vorlage of the Septuagint requires the use of the mt, a fact that constitutes a sort of circular reasoning. Yet the mt and the Vorlage are just manuscripts that testify to the pluriformity of the Jewish Scriptures. More attention should be paid to the transmission and use of the individual Septuagint texts in the later Jewish and Christian communities. The contribution of Peter Gentry relates to the role of the ‘Three’ in the textual history of the Septuagint. He discusses the difficulties in attempting to describe either the Septuagint or the Three. Gentry demonstrates the need for further research to determine the dividing line between the Old Greek and the work of the Three. Kristin De Troyer analyses the name of God and the self-identification formula ‘I am the Lord’ in the Greek of the Schøyen Leviticus Papyri, dated to the end of the second or beginning of the third century c.e. and one of the oldest extant papyri of the Greek Leviticus. According to De Troyer, the papyrus seems to be an important witness to the Old Greek with regard to the self-identification formula. Adrian Schenker studies the textual evidence of Deuteronomy to show that the Hebrew perfect of the verb ‘to choose’ is the original reading in the formula “a place which the Lord your God has chosen to cause his name to dwell there” in the Hebrew Deuteronomy. The origi-

preface

xix

nal lxx text, attested in few Greek manuscripts, in the Coptic, and in the Vetus Latina traditions, had the aorist indicative, which reflects the Hebrew perfect in the Vorlage. The perfect is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, independent of the lxx tradition. According to Schenker, the imperfect (future) of the mt is a theologically motivated correction. Anneli Aejmelaeus, who has been working on the critical edition of 1 Sam in the Göttingen lxx edition, challenges conventional views held of the relationship between the main witnesses, particularly the role of Vaticanus, in establishing the critical text. She demonstrates with examples from 1 Samuel 15 that, also in 1 Samuel, in the non καίγε section, exegetical and theological changes typical of the καίγε sections have sporadically taken place, especially in the B-text, often followed by Alexandrinus and the base text of the O-group. Elina Perttilä illustrates the problems involved in the use of Coptic manuscripts in the study of the textual history of the Septuagint. Being a translation, the Coptic text requires analysis of its translation and translation technique. On a first examination, the translator seems to have been fairly free. However, this freedom is partly due to differences between the two languages. Perttilä demonstrates the problems involved in studying the renderings of the Greek conjunctions in 1 Samuel. Maria Victoria Spottorno provides the reader with a list of sequences between two types of texts in the Greek books of Samuel and Kings: the Alexandrian text, represented by the Codex Vaticanus, and the Antiochene text, also called the Lucianic. The texts disagree on translation equivalencies and on the order of chapters and verses. Their discrepancies with the Masoretic text are not discussed here. Natalio Fernández Marcos presents ten examples chosen from 1 Kings from the Collectio Coisliniana, edited by Françoise Petit, and shows how new readings from the catenae manuscripts may, in different ways, contribute to the new edition of the Hexaplaric material. The essay demonstrates the need for the new edition of Hexaplaric material. This has become evident when new scientific editions of the Fathers and of the catenae, which include Hexaplaric material, have been published. Comparing the versions of Gedaliah’s murder in 2 Kings 25:25 and Jeremiah 41:1–3 and their lxx translations, Juha Pakkala studies textual transitions of the story. He shows how the shorter text in 2 Kings mt/lxx has developed through various editorial additions into what we have in mt Jeremiah 41:1–3. According to Pakkala, these textual witnesses testify to the constant editing in the history of the Hebrew Bible and the importance of the literary critical method in biblical studies.

xx

preface

Michael Knibb confirms and slightly corrects the judgement made by Ziegler that the Ethiopic text of Ezekiel belongs with the A-group of manuscripts in Greek traditions throughout the book. Knibb provides further information on the relationship between the Ethiopic version of Ezekiel and the minuscules; in particular, he shows the frequent agreement of the Ethiopic version with the pair 106–410. Claude Cox seeks to identify the L text in the book of Iob as Lucianic, to examine its character, and to show that Lucian’s starting point was a text that included the work of Theodotion, i.e., it was a Hexaplaric type of text. What left Lucian’s hands was not less Hexaplaric, but was almost as different again from the og/Theodotion as Theodotion’s translation is different from the Old Greek. Robert Kraft presents the CATSS (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) textual variants project and its present state concerning the Greek Pentateuch. The detailed and often technical data appears to be useful; it is constantly updated and provides the basic tools for research of the Jewish Greek scriptures. Raija Sollamo has had from the start of her academic career great interest in the Hebrew and Greek languages; it is fitting that Hebrew and Greek linguistics is the theme of Part Three. One of the distinctive features of Greek literature is that it has a variety of literary languages, one for almost every literary genre. Georg Walser argues that, when the Pentateuch was translated into Greek, the translators did not aim to translate it into idiomatic Koine Greek, although they had the ability to do so. They instead created a new variety of Greek. By the word ‘variety’, Walser means a kind of Greek clearly differentiated by phonetic, grammatical and lexical peculiarities, and bound to a specific literary genre. Later this variety was used, it is argued, to produce other translations and Hellenistic Jewish texts, and the authors of the New Testament made use of it as well. Takamitsu Muraoka studies the semantics of ὀρθρίζω and its relation to the Hebrew verbs rjv pi and μbv hi. Muraoka has identified three meanings for the verb: 1. to rise from bed early in the morning, 2. to seek and turn in eager anticipation, and 3. to act eagerly. It is shown that, in senses 2 and 3, the verb does not have the connotation ‘early in the morning’ or the feature of physical movement cannot be established with certainty. The eagerness is an essential semantic component of this verb. According to the Greek grammar by Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, the so-called locative dative is almost entirely missing in the

preface

xxi

Greek of the nt. Lars Aejmelaeus analyses all the dative cases in the Corpus Paulinum, and comes to the conclusion that there are datives that are not easily explained in any other way than the locative dative. The Finnish Translation Committee of the Apocrypha made a decision to use the Hebrew name forms that are supposed to have underlain the Greek name forms in the Greek 1 Esdras. The Greek names have been replaced by the (sometimes theoretical) Semitic consonantal structures. In his contribution, Tapani Harviainen discusses the problems involved in such an endeavour. The names reflect a tradition which deviates from the Tiberian pointing. This makes the employment of the Tiberian vocalisation in the reconstruction of the Semitic name forms impossible. In addition, the manuscripts vary in this respect, which further complicates the task. In the “Intertestamental Literature” project led by Raija Sollamo, the text discoveries from Qumran were well represented. Part Four is dedicated to various issues on and related to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sarianna Metso examines the changes that took place in covenantal discourses during the Second Temple period. Whereas the covenantal blessings and curses are attested in the Hebrew Bible as part of the legal discourse in particular, they appear in apocalyptic and wisdom contexts in the Qumran texts. Blessings and curses are no longer consequences of right or wrong conduct but rather division markers between the chosen ones and the outsiders. Metso argues that the shift from legal to wisdom/apocalyptic discourses is not unique to Qumran but is found in texts like Ben Sira, Baruch and 1 Enoch. The Qumran movement is often considered as an apocalyptic or eschatological movement, but can it be characterized as prophetic? Martti Nissinen first defines prophecy, then surveys prophetic terminology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and argues that prophetic functions were alive and well in the Qumran movement, albeit the title ‘prophet’ was reserved for ancient prophets as well as for false, contemporary prophets. Furthermore, oral/aural prophecy was largely replaced by literary activities. The contribution of George Brooke shares the assumption that prophecy had not ceased in the late Second Temple period. Brooke illuminates the role of prophecy in the Qumran movement’s self-understandings, its perception of exile in particular. He studies the evidence in two groups—roughly, texts in the second century b.c.e. and texts in the first century b.c.e.—and shows how the experience of not being

xxii

preface

in exile and yet in exile but on the way to the promised land is justified by the interpretation of past prophecies and by ongoing prophetic activity. Two contributions deal with David in very different ways. First, Pekka Särkiö examines the depiction of mixed marriages in a selection of post-exilic texts. He sees terminological and thematic similarities between the stories of Tamar and Ruth—foreign women married into the tribe of Judah—and David’s ascension story, suggesting literary dependence. The purpose of these intertextual links and the redaction was to demonstrate that the Davidic monarchy had violated the ban on mixed marriages and brought destruction upon itself. Särkiö’s study also illuminates Raija Sollamo’s interest in the study of women in the Hebrew Bible. It is placed here—though not a study on the Qumran texts—to lead us to the next essay also dealing with David and women, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bodil Ejrnæs examines two psalms of the great Psalm Scroll from Qumran (11QPsa): the poem previously known from Sir 51 and the (previously unknown) Apostrophe to Zion. Whereas these poems may not at first sight have anything to do with David, a closer and perhaps deeper reading of texts in their context and in connection to each other reveals a level at which both poems can be read as David’s love poems. Moreover, the two women of these poems can be understood metaphorically, standing for wisdom and for Zion theology; in this way, the poems celebrate the glory of David. The following four contributions introduce past and future projects of some of Raija Sollamo’s students. Mika Pajunen studies the Qumranic version of Psalm 91 in the collection of apocryphal psalms from Qumran (11QPsApa). By a structural analysis of the Psalm, Pajunen seeks to explain its variant readings, mainly compared to the mt, arguing that an editor made divine protection and the believer’s action in attaining this protection the explicit centre of the Psalm. As such, the Psalm works as an assurance of healing in the context of exorcism, which is the ritual function of the scroll. Magnus Riska summarises the results of his studies on the Temple Scroll. One is a textual critical study on two sections of the Temple Scroll that prescribe and describe the Temple and the cult. The other analysis seeks to define the closeness of the Scroll to the biblical traditions, ranging from direct and literal quotation to individual creative composition with only a hint of indirect dependence on the biblical texts. The

preface

xxiii

analysis shows the free creativity that the authors felt in forming their message—perhaps one evidence of the prophetic activity touched upon earlier in this volume. Juhana Saukkonen moves away from the texts in order to study the archaeological evidence from Khirbet Qumran without any presuppositions of its relation to the Scrolls of the Caves. His contribution resembles a detective story: the gathering of all the available evidence, a close scrutiny of the clues and pondering on the facts finally leads to conclusions, yet keeping all the necessary options open for possible new evidence and data obtained in the future. Hanne von Weissenberg takes up a topic that not only requires all the available textual evidence in the Qumran library to be considered but also requires other contemporary texts and later collections to be viewed from the perspective of their authoritative status. In the study of the formation of ‘canon’, a close and authoritative collection of texts, von Weissenberg argues that the questions of identity formation should not be left aside. The formulation of past and future questions are leading the way. Finally, Cecilia Wassen touches upon two collections of texts by showing how the Dead Sea Scrolls can illuminate the study of the New Testament. The interpretation of the story in Mark of the hemorrhaging woman touching Jesus is dependent on the kind of purity system thought to be working in that society. Whereas some interpretations take Jesus as disregarding or rejecting Jewish purity laws—the woman touches Jesus, defiling him, but Jesus’ interest is only in healing the woman—Wassen argues that, on the basis of the evidence derived from the Scrolls, the woman was not defiling Jesus and impurity was not the issue in the story. Part Five, the final section of the volume, takes us to the Present-Day. It is fitting that Raija’s Festschrift should close with contemporary questions and challenges. Making acquired knowledge accessible and understandable, eagerly learning new things and techniques, and comparing complex human phenomena through time and space would well characterise Raija’s nature and interests. Raimo Hakola and Jarmo Kiilunen offer a review of teaching Biblical Hebrew and Greek in the Finnish context, but first and foremost they point out major world-wide challenges in teaching—and learning—ancient languages and offer one aid for overcoming some of

xxiv

preface

the obstacles. The “Multimodal learning environment for New Testament Greek” is, in a friendly way, called Kamu (“Buddy”), and an English demo version invites everyone to test what it is about. Popularising scientific work for a wider audience is not as easy as one might think. Concerning the idea of the lxx in the popular media, Leonard Greenspoon offers a wide-ranging discussion and analysis of Jewish responses to the lxx, along with a critique of the lack of interest and/or faulty information about it. His contribution is an advocacy for more Jewish scholars to involve themselves in lxx studies. The closing place of the volume is reserved for Heikki Räisänen and his wider view of the Bible as one among many scriptures. All world religions have scriptures, and what is considered as scripture also changes in time and locality. The early Christians had the Septuagint as their scripture. Räisänen introduces profound similarities and differences between various scriptures and shows how a comparative study of scripture increases our understanding and tolerance of present religious traditions. We warmly thank every contributor to this volume. We have enjoyed the process and learned a lot in putting it all together. Anssi Voitila was responsible for editing the Parts One, Two, and Three, and Jutta Jokiranta for Parts Four and Five. Some essays are in British English and some in American English. We wish to express our special gratitude to John Collins who invited us to publish in this series and carefully polished the result with his experienced editorial eye, as well as Hindy Najman who undertook some of the editorial work. Our warm thanks go to Mattie Kuiper and Anita Roodnat at Brill for all their assistance and kind guidance as well as to various colleagues at the Department of Biblical studies at the University of Helsinki who have helped us on the way, especially Martti Nissinen, Juhana Saukkonen, Seppo Sipilä, Hanne von Weissenberg, and, for technical assistance, Susanna Asikainen, Kirsi Reyes, and Mette Sundblad. For linguistic advice and assistance, we are deeply grateful to the Whiting family, Margot, Robert and Marlena Whiting. Helsinki, December 2007 Editors

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RAIJA SOLLAMO Monographs Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. Raamatun naisia. Helsinki: Kirjaneliö, 1983 [in Finnish, Women in the Bible]. Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Edited Books Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen. Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax: Zu seinen 70. Geburtstag am 4 Juni 1987. Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 237. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Sollamo, Raija, ed. Kuolleen meren kirjakääröt: Qumranin tekstit suomeksi. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1991. Sollamo, Raija, ed., Paimentolaisten uskonnosta kirkkolaitokseksi. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 55. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1991. Sollamo, Raija, and Ismo Dunderberg, ed., Naisia Raamatussa: Viisaus ja rakkaus. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1992. Sollamo, Raija, ed. Qumranin kirjasto: Valikoima teoksia. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1997. Sollamo, Raija, and Seppo Sipilä, eds. Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 82. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2001.

xxvi

bibliography of raija sollamo Articles in English

“Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions, such as ἐνωπιον, ἐναντιον, ἐναντι etc., in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 773–82. “Repetitions of Possessive Pronouns in the Greek Pentateuch.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14 (1981): 41–43. “Semitic Interference in Words Meaning ‘Before’ in the New Testament.” Pages 181–200 in Glaube und Gerechtigkeit: In memoriam Rafael Gyllenberg (18.6.1893–29.7.1982). Edited by Jarmo Kiilunen, Vilho Riekkinen, and Heikki Räisänen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 38. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1983. “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch.” Pages 101–13 in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos. Testos y Studios “Cardenal Cisneros”. Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” CSIC, 1985. “The Source Text for the Translation of the Old Testament.” The Bible Translator 37 (1986): 319–22. “The Simile in Ps 74:5: A Wood-Cutter Entering a Forest Wielding Axes?” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 54 (1989): 178–87. “The Koine Background for the Repetition and Non-Repetition of the Possessive Pronoun in Co-Ordinate Items.” Pages 52–63 in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages. Edited by Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John William Wevers. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 75–85 in 7th Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989.

bibliography of raija sollamo

xxvii

Edited by Claude E. Cox. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. “Ideology, Archaeology and History in the Old Testament: A Brief Response to Magnus Ottosson’s Paper.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8 (1994): 224–27. “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the LXX of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.” Pages 43–62 in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by Leonard J. Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. “The Origins of LXX Studies in Finland.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10 (1996): 159–68. “Oppositional Religions?” Pages 21–22 in Beyond the Mainstream: The Emergence of Religious Pluralism in Finland, Estonia and Russia. Edited by Jeffrey Kaplan. Studia Historica 63. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2000. “Introduction.” Pages 7–12 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999. Edited by Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. “Prolegomena to the Syntax of the Septuagint.” Pages 23–41 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999. Edited by Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. “Repetition of Possessive Pronouns in the Greek Psalter: The Use and Non-Use of Possessive Pronouns in Renderings of Hebrew Coordinate Items with Possessive Suffixes.” Pages 44–53 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by Peter J. Gentry, Claude E. Cox and Robert J. V. Hiebert. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

xxviii


“The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the Septuagint.” Pages 329– 42 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. “The Passive with an Agent in Biblical Hebrew and Its Rendering in the Septuagint.” Pages 617–29 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. Van Peursen. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 1181. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. “The Significance of Septuagint Studies.” Pages 497–512 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community.” Pages 341–352 in Verbum et calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen. Edited by Hannu Juusola, Juha Laulainen, and Heikki Palva. Studia Orientalia 99. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004. “An Example of Consistency: Interpretation by the Translator of the Greek Genesis in Rendering the Hebrew Semipreposition ynpl.” Pages 3–12 in Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna: Essays on Biblical and Related Themes in Honour of Lars Aejmelaeus. Edited by Antti Mustakallio. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 89. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2005. “Repetitions of Prepositions in the Septuagint of Genesis.” Pages 371– 84 in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and M. Vervenne. BETL CXCII. Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005. “Messianism and the ‘Branch of David:’ Isaiah 11,1–5 and Genesis 49,8–12.” Pages 357–370 in The Septuagint and Messianism: Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LIII, July 27–29, 2004. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 195. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.


xxix

“The Creation of Angels and Natural Phenomena Intertwined in the Book of Jubilees (4QJuba).” Pages 273–290 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. Edited by Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006. “The Place of the Enclitic Personal Pronouns in the Old Greek Psalter.” Pages 153–160 in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden, 2004. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 54. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Articles in Finnish and in Swedish “Heprean puoliprepositiot ja niiden suomentaminen.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 74 (1969): 457–466. “Vanhan testamentin käyttö seurakunnan julistuksessa: Eksegetiikka ja hermeneutiikka.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 78 (1973): 416–428. “Agentti Raamatun hepreassa.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 82 (1977): 250– 260. “Jälkiklassisen kreikan ja Raamatun kreikan avautuminen kriittiselle tutkimukselle: Lectio praecursoria 7.4.1979.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 84 (1979): 348–353. “Ajankohtaista Septuaginta-tutkimuksessa.” Pages 41–54 in Mitä eksegetiikassa tapahtuu: Suomen eksegeettisen seuran vuosikirja 1980. Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja 35. Helsinki: Suomen Eksegeettinen Seura, 1980. “Maria oman yhteiskuntansa jäsenenä.” Näköala 1 (1982): 6–10. “Vanhan testamentin luomiskertomukset ja luomisusko.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 87 (1982): 100–116. “Jerikon valloitus.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 89 (1984): 255–259.

xxx


“Den bibliska formeln ‘Inför Herren/Inför Gud’.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 50 (1985): 21–32. “Nainen kirkon palvelijattarena.” Pages 76–86 in Se on kaikki kotiinpäin. Edited by Sirkka Sinkkonen and Eila Ollikainen. Kuopio, 1985. “Ja alussa . . .: Luominen ja lankeemus naistutkijan silmin.” Tiede 2000, no. 6 (1985): 14–19. “Henokin kirjat—avaruusmatkoja vai taivasnäkyjä?” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 91 (1986): 261–65. “Joosuan kirjan Septuaginta-käännöksen luonteesta.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 92 (1987): 191–98. “Joosuan kirjan Masoreettisen tekstin luotettavuus.” Pages 124–137 in Kohti uutta kirkkoraamattua. Edited by Jorma Salminen and Aarne Toivanen. Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja 43. Helsinki: Suomen Eksegeettinen Seura, 1986. “Feministiteologia ja raamatullinen patriarkalismi.” Pages 9–22 in Tulenkesyttäjät: Helsingin Akateemisten Naisten 60-vuotisjuhlakirja. Helsinki, 1987. “Vieraiden uskontojen kohtaaminen Vanhassa testamentissa.” Kirkkomme lähetys, no. 3 (1987): 2–6. “Feministiteologian naisnäkökulma teologiaan.” Pages 74–90 in Akanvirtaan. Edited by Päivi Setälä and Hannele Kurki. Helsinki, 1988. “Ihmisen asema luomakunnassa Raamatun mukaan.” Vartija 101 (1988): 19–25. “Sanasta elämä—uusi raamattuohjelma pienryhmille.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 94 (1989): 44–46. “Johdanto.” Pages 9–14 in Kuolleen meren kirjakääröt: Qumranin tekstit suomeksi. Edited by Raija Sollamo. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1991. “Kansanusko ja ‘valtionkirkko’ muinaisessa Israelissa.” Pages 17–32 in Paimentolaisten uskonnosta kirkkolaitokseksi. Edited by Raija Sollamo.


xxxi

Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja 55. Helsinki: Suomen Eksegeettinen Seura, 1991. “Luotu lähimmäisyyteen: Diakonian juuret Vanhassa testamentissa.” Pages 11–35 in Hoivatkaa toinen toistanne: Diakonian teologian käsikirja. Edited by Kerttu Inkala. Pieksämäki, 1991. “Naisen alistettu asema—luomisjärjestyskö?” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 96 (1991): 404–409. “Tieteen ykseys ja tieteen rajat: Teologin ja naistutkijan visio.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 96 (1991): 193–199. “Hyvän vaimon ylistys.” Pages 23–38 in Naisia Raamatussa: Viisaus ja rakkaus. Edited by Raija Sollamo ja Ismo Dunderberg. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1992. “Naiseksi personoitu viisaus Sananlaskujen kirjassa.” Pages 7–22 in Naisia Raamatussa: Viisaus ja rakkaus. Edited by Raija Sollamo ja Ismo Dunderberg. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1992. “Naisten alistaminen Uudesa testamentissa: 1 Kor 14:34 ja huoneentaulut.” Pages 160–73 in Aimo Annos Eksegetiikkaa: Piispa Aimo T. Nikolaisen juhlakirja. Edited by Lars Aejmelaeus. Helsinki: Kirjapaja, 1992. “Ihminen, työ ja markkinavoimat.” Diakonia 35 no. 6 (1994): 4–5. “Miehen ja naisen viisaus: myrskyisä keskustelu.” Sielunhoidon aikakauskirja 8 (1995): 11–24. “Hän jonka istuinta kerubit kannattavat: Yksi Jumalasta käytetty kuva Vanhassa testamentissa.” Pages 34–50 in Kuvan teologia. Edited by Matti Kotiranta. Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 209. Helsinki: Suomalainen Teologinen Kirjallisuusseura, 1997. “Johdanto.” Pages 9–14 in Qumranin kirjasto: Valikoima teoksia. Edited by Raija Sollamo. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1997. “Kultainen vasikka ja lain taulut.” Pages 98–105 in Diakonia muutosvoimana: Diakonian vuosikirja 1996–1997. Edited by Päivi Petrelius. Helsinki: Diakonia ry, 1997.

xxxii


”Paavali ja naiset.” Pages 67–78 in Kristinusko kohti kolmatta vuosituhatta. Edited by Päivi Heino and Harri Westermarck. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 2000. “Qumranin tekstit avaavat näkymiä Raamatun syntyyn.” Vartija 113 (2000): 135–141. “Septuaginta—maailman vanhin raamatunkäännös.” Pages 43–51 in Vanhan kirjallisuuden vuosikirja 1996–1999. Edited by llpo Tiitinen and Johanna Paajanen. Vammala, 2000. “Raamatunkäännökset.” Pages 130–40 in Raamattu ja länsimainen kulttuuri. Edited by Lassi Larjo. Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran Julkaisuja 237. Helsinki: Suomalainen Teologinen Kirjallisuusseura, 2003. “Timo Veijola im memoriam.” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 110 (2005): 290– 91. “Vanhan testamentin apokryfikirjojen uusi suomennos.” Pages 79–87 in Signum unitatis—Ykseyden merkki: Piispa Juha Pihkalan juhlakirja. Edited by Ari Hukari. Tampereen hiippakunnan vuosikirja 2007. Helsinki: Kirjapaja, 2006. Textbooks Harviainen, Tapani, and Raija Sollamo. Heprean tekstikirja ja sanasto. 2d ed. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1976. Dunderberg, Ismo, Raija Sollamo, and Riitta Tuovinen. Lukion uskonto: Raamatun maailmat. Helsinki: Otava, 1994. Dunderberg, Ismo, Raija Sollamo, Eija Suokko, and Riitta Tuovinen. Lukion uskonto: Riitit, myytit ja Raamattu. Helsinki: Otava, 1997. Dunderberg, Ismo, Markku Heikkilä, Jaakko Heinimäki, Petri Järveläinen, Raija Sollamo, Eija Suokko, and Riitta Tuovinen. Lukion uskonnon käsikirja. Helsinki: Otava, 1998.

ABBREVIATIONS AASF Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae AASF B Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae: Series B AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AIBI Association Internationale Bible et Informatique AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature AnBib Analecta biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch ATDA Das Alte Testament Deutsch: Apokryphen ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament BA Biblical Archaeologist BBB Bulletin de bibliographie biblique BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Bib Biblica BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BJS Brown Judaic Studies BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by N. Nothe and H. W. Wolff

xxxiv BWANT BZAW CAD CahRB CBET CBQ CBQMS CCSG CCSL CSCO CSEL CSIC DBSup DCH DJD DJDJ DNP DSD EDSS EJ ER ETL EvT FAT FOTL FRLANT GJS GKC

abbreviations Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956– Cahiers de la Revue biblique Contributions to biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum: Series graeca. Turnhout, 1977– Corpus Christianorum: Series latina. Turnhout, 1953– Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B. Chabot et al. Paris, 1903– Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas Dictionnaire de la bible: Supplément. Edited by L. Pirot and A. Robert. Paris, 1928– Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, 1993– Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart, 1996– Dead Sea Discoveries Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York, 2000 Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972 The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York, 1987 Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Greek Jewish Scriptures Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d. ed. Oxford, 1910

abbreviations HALOT

xxxv

Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999 HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HBS Herders biblische Studien HeyJ Heythrop Journal HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HO Handbuch der Orientalistik HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IOSOT International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellentistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2d ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–1969

xxxvi KAT KBL KEK LCL LD LDAB LEH LHB LSJ MSU NewDocs NEB NETS

NICOT NovT NTD NTOA NTS OBO OEANE OLA ÖTKNT OTL OTS OtSt Qad QD RB REB RevQ

abbreviations Kommentar zum Alten Testament Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2d ed. Leiden, 1958 Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Leuven Database of Ancient Books Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rrev. ed. Stuttgart, 2003 Library of Hebrew Bible Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by G. H. R. Horsley and S. Llewelyn. North Ryde, N. S. W., 1981– New English Bible A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title [NETS]. Ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; New York, 2007). New International Commentary on the Old Testament Novum Testamentum Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E. M. Meyers. New York, 1997 Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studiën Qadmoniot Quaestiones disputatae Revue biblique Revista eclesiástica brasileira Revue de Qumran

abbreviations RHR SAAS SBAB SBL SBLCS SBLDS SBLSCS SBLSymS SBLTCS SDSSRL SHR SJOT SNTSMS STDJ StudOr SubBi SUNT TB TDNT TECC TEV ThWAT TLG TLZ TOB TRE TSAJ TUGAL TWNT

xxxvii

Revue de l’histoire des religions State Archives of Assyria Studies Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Text-Critical Studies Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studies in the History of Relgions (supplement to Numen) Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia orientalia Subsidia biblica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” Today’s English Version (= Good News Bible) Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by L. Verkowitz and K. A. Squitier. 3d ed. Oxford, 1990 Theologische Literaturzeitung Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. Berlin, 1977– Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart, 1932–1979

xxxviii TZ VC VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAH ZAW ZBK AT ZNW

abbreviations Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Althebräistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

PART ONE

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION

THE RENDERINGS OF THE HEBREW PREPOSITION l IN PREDICATE EXPRESSIONS DENOTING TRANSITION AND BECOMING SOMETHING IN LXX GENESIS AND EXODUS Katri Tenhunen Introduction In this study, I will analyse a particular feature of translating the Hebrew preposition l in the lxx Genesis and Exodus, namely the renderings of the preposition l in predicate expressions with the following meanings: ‘transition into a new role or state’, ‘goal, result’, ‘becoming something’ and the like. l is the most common Hebrew preposition and has a variety of different functions (dative object of verbs, genitive, possession and belonging, temporal, local, modal cases). One usage of l on which the current study will focus here is the denotation of various kinds of ‘purpose’, that is, l is employed, e.g., to introduce transition into a new role, entering into a new state; aim, goal or result of an action; being or becoming in a function/capacity.1 The kinds of l cases discussed herein occur with verbs such as hyh, ˆtn, and hc[, but also with many other verbs and in nominal clauses and may concern both persons and things (e.g., take someone as wife, be as a sign). As Gesenius says, l is used “to introduce the result after verbs of making, forming, changing, appointing to something, esteeming as something; in short, in all those cases in which a second accusative may also be used”.2 The use of l in such cases is probably derived from its basic local-directional meaning

1 The cases discussed in here are approximately the same as cases discussed in Ernst Jenni, Die Präposition Lamed, (vol. 3 of idem, Die hebräischen Präpositionen; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 33–45 under the title Lamed revaluationis (§§11–16). In the lexicon of D. J. A. Clines (DCH 4:481–82): l as, a. (so) as (to be), into; b. in the function/capacity of; c. hyh l be as, become; and 5. l of purpose, a. for (the purpose of ). In HALOT: 7. aim, purpose of an action, and 13. result or product of an action (508–9). In BDB (512): 4. Into (εἰς), of a transition into a new state or condition, or into a new character or office. I would like to point out here that the use of l with infinitivus constructus, often denoting a final meaning, has some similarities to the use of l with nouns denoting purpose, but I will not be studying infinitive construct cases in this article. 2 GKC 381 (§119t).

2

katri tenhunen

‘to, towards’, in which it was employed to express purpose or goal with verbs other than verbs of motion.3 The lxx renderings of Hebrew l in these kinds of cases are various. First of all, we may distinguish two main groups of renderings: (I) literal renderings using a Greek preposition as an equivalent of the Hebrew l, which are most often εἰς + accusative, rarely ἐν + dative, and some sporadically occurring prepositions; and (II) renderings without a direct equivalent for the preposition l, where the clause is rendered idiomatically as a unit and the rendering used for l + noun depends upon the verb and its rendering. Here we have two different groups: (IIa) the rendering of l hyh is usually γίνεσθαι or εἶναι + predicate nominative,4 whereas (IIb) in connection with those verbs that take a double accusative in Greek, such as ‘to make something as/ into something’ the rendering of l + noun is accusative.5 In the latter group (IIb) nominative renderings are not possible in Greek;6 in the former (IIa), accusative is possible in the rendering of l hyh only in the accusativus cum infinitivo construct. Neither nominative nor accusative is strictly speaking a rendering of the preposition l, but rather a rendering of the predicate to which l is connected. Besides nominative and

3 This is the explanation offered by most Hebrew grammars. For a different view see Ernst Jenni, “Subjektive und objektive Klassifikation im althebräischen Nominalsatz,” TZ 55 (1999):103–11; and Die Präposition Lamed, 27–28. According to Jenni the basic meaning of l is not local/directional, but expressing relation between two entities that remain distinct (whereas b expresses relation between two entities presenting them as identical). l with predicative according to him expresses a change of role, a reclassification, which is not an objective change (becoming something) but rather a subjective ‘re-valuation’ of the relation between role-bearer and role. 4 Raphael Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache II:1. (3d ed.; ed. Bernhard Gerth; Hannover/Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1898), 44 (§356). 5 Robert Helbing, Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta: Ein Beitrag zur Hebraismenfrage und zur Syntax der Κοινή (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928), 51–65; Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik, 318 (§411); Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. II:2. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934), 320–21 (§102); James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, Syntax (vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek; ed. Nigel Turner; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 246; Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (ed. Friedrich Rehkopf; 15th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 128 (§157). 6 Nominative might, in theory, come into question in cases where the Greek verb normally constructed with accusative is in the passive and has only one object, but such cases don’t really occur in my material (Gen 30:30 with a passive verb is rendered using εἰς). When a Greek active clause with a verb that takes two accusatives goes over into the passive, the direct object of such a verb will be in the nominative, whereas the second object would be in the accusative.

the renderings of the hebrew preposition l

3

accusative, some other free renderings such as infinitives, finite verbs, and the particle ὡς are used on occasion to render l + noun. The literal renderings where the Hebrew preposition l is rendered by a Greek preposition occur both as renderings of l hyh and as renderings of l predicates with other verbs. Especially in the renderings of hyh l, the proper idiomatic expression in Greek would use the predicate without a preposition. There are, however, instances of prepositional structures—εἰς + accusative or sometimes ἐν + dative—in Greek texts instead of predicate accusative and possibly in some cases also instead of predicate nominative.7 Such usage (εἰς + accusative) is more common in the texts ‘under Semitic influence’ than in other Greek texts.8 If the lxx translators wished to translate the elements of their source text by using the same number of elements in the target language and did not find it suitable to use a mere accusative or nominative to render the Hebrew l + noun, then the Greek εἰς, which denotes direction to, towards, was a natural choice. It is a quite literal equivalent for Hebrew l in cases expressing purpose and corresponds to many meanings of l. The use of εἰς instead of predicate accusative or nominative is common in the Septuagint because εἰς is the easiest rendering of l in cases of transition or purpose. There are 92 cases of l denoting transition and purpose in Genesis.9 Of the 92 cases, 56 (61%) are rendered by εἰς + accusative, 1810 (20%) by Greek accusative without preposition, 9 (10%) by Greek nominative without preposition, 3 by ἐν + dative, 2 ὡς, 1 infinitive, 1 εἰς τό + infinitive, 1 ἐπί11 and 1 free rendering. In Exodus there are 66 cases, of which 25 (38%) are rendered by Greek nominative, 1512 (23%) by accusative, 20 (30%) by εἰς + accusative,13 2 ἐν + dative, 2 infinitive, 7 Helbing, Kasussyntax, 60–65; Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri II:2, 362–67 (§110) (but very few cases with γίνεσθαι or εἶναι). 8 Moulton and Turner, Syntax, 247, 253; Blass and Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 120 (§145), 129 (§157). 9 The material studied for this article is part of my dissertation on the renderings of the preposition l in the Septuagint Pentateuch. 10 Including Gen 29:24, where l is lacking in the mt but the reading of some manuscripts, versions and the lxx Vorlage hjp‫שׁ‬l is to be preferred. Also included with caution Gen 45:7 hfylpl, κατάλειψιν, where the lxx Vorlage possibly did not read l and other interpretations of the meaning than a purpose case are well possible. 11 Gen 31:52 h[rl, ἐπὶ κακίᾳ. 12 Exod 2:21 has an accusative γυναῖκα obviously corresponding to a hval in the lxx Vorlage, but this is lacking in the mt and thus not calculated here. 13 Including Exod 28:2 and 28:40 the rendering of traptlw dwbkl, εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, where the preposition εἰς is not repeated before the second element of the

4

katri tenhunen

1 ἐπί,14 and 1 κατά + accusative.15 In what follows, I shall give some examples of and compare the cases in Genesis and Exodus by first dividing the material into l hyh cases and cases with other verbs. I will start with renderings that take prepositions (εἰς + accusative and others) then subsequently nominative, accusative, and other renderings. εἰς + Accusative εἰς is often used in the Septuagint as the rendering of l in cases denoting transition and becoming. The frequent occurrence of εἰς + accusative in such predicate cases is a Hebraistic feature, although in many singular cases εἰς is a suitable rendering. The renderings with εἰς + accusative are used in the lxx both instead of predicate nominative (the renderings of l hyh) and instead of double accusative (verbs other than hyh). εἰς + accusative is clearly the most common rendering of the transitive l in Genesis, occurring 56 times, 25 of which in the renderings of l hyh and 1 in the rendering of a nominal clause without hyh. In Exodus, there are 20 εἰς + accusative renderings, of which 6 are renderings of l hyh.

Renderings of l hyh Robert Helbing studied the frequent use of εἰς in the lxx before the predicate noun with γίνεσθαι and εἶναι corresponding to l hyh. According to Helbing, many cases of γίνεσθαι εἰς, which assume the meaning ‘to become’ (werden zu, e.g., Gen 2:7 hyj vpnl μdah yhyw, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν), were understandable to the Greek-speaking reader because this use occurs in Greek texts. γίνεσθαι εἰς and εἶναι εἰς taking on the meaning ‘dienen zu’ (e.g., Gen 31:44 d[l hyhw, καὶ ἔσται εἰς μαρτύριον) also occur in Greek texts outside the Septuagint. Nevertheless, γίνεσθαι εἰς and εἶναι εἰς, as they come to mean ‘to be/become/belong for someone as something’ (such as Gen 20:12 hval ylAyhtw, ἐγενήθη δέ μοι εἰς γυναῖκα, Exod 2:10 ˆbl hlAyhyw,

expression, but both words are counted as εἰς cases in each occurrence. Also in Exod 13:16 καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον . . . καὶ ἀσάλευτον . . . both words are counted as εἰς cases although the preposition is not repeated before ἀσάλευτον. 14 Exod 23:2 t[rl, ἐπὶ κακίᾳ. 15 Exod 29:17 in the rendering of wyjtnl jtn, ‘to cut into pieces’, κατὰ μέλη.


5

καὶ ἐγενήθη αὐτῇ εἰς υἱόν), are Hebraisms.16 The last two examples, Gen 20:12 and Exod 2:10 are the most clearly Hebraistic renderings in my material. Let us see some examples of l hyh cases meaning ‘becoming something’. There are several cases meaning ‘becoming a people’: Gen 18:18 lwdg ywgl hyhy wyh μhrbaw, Αβρααμ δὲ γινόμενος ἔσται εἰς ἔθνος μέγα; Gen 48:19 μ[l Ahyhy, ἔσται εἰς λαόν, Gen 17:16 μywgl htyhw, καὶ ἔσται εἰς ἔθνη. At least according to Helbing, these cases would be understandable Greek, but Gen 28:3 μym[ lhql tyyhw, καὶ ἔσῃ εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν ‘and you shall become gatherings of nations’ is perhaps not so clear. As for other examples of becoming I can mention ‘one flesh’ in Gen 2:24 dja rcbl wyhw, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν; ‘flood’ in Gen 9:15 rcbAlk tjvl lwbml μymh dw[ hyhyAalw, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς κατακλυσμὸν ὥστε ἐξαλεῖψαι πᾶσαν σάρκα; ‘salvation’ in Exod 15:2 h[wvyl ylAyhyw hy trmzw yz[, βοηθὸς καὶ σκεπαστὴς ἐγένετό μοι εἰς σωτηρίαν. Here we notice examples in which εἰς is used to render l expressions denoting division into something, and increasing into an amount (a multitude):17 Gen 32:11 twnjm ynvl ytyyh ht[w, νυνὶ δὲ γέγονα εἰς δύο παρεμβολάς Gen 24:60 hbbr yplal yyh, γίνου εἰς χιλιάδας μυριάδων In Gen 28:21, μyhlal yl hwhy hyh is rendered by ἔσται μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν. Usually μyhlal hyh is rendered by the nominative εἶναι θεός; the rendering εἶναι εἰς θεόν does not occur elsewhere in the Pentateuch, but there are some occurrences in other books of the Old Testament.

Examples of cases that denote serving as something: ‘be a witness’ εἶναι εἰς μαρτύριον in Gen 21:30 (hd[l hyh) and 31:44 (d[l hyh); ‘be as an everlasting covenant’ (μlw[ tyrbl hyh, εἶναι εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον) in Gen 17:13; twal hyh, ‘be as a sign’ rendered by εἶναι εἰς σημεῖον occurs in Gen 9:13 (tyrb twal, εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης); in the plural with

Helbing, Kasussyntax, 64–65; Frederick Conybeare and St. George Stock, A Grammar of Septuagint Greek (repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980), §90c: “The use of εἰς with the accusative after εἶναι and γενέσθαι as practically equivalent to the nominative may safely be regarded as a Hebraism.” Antonius Jannaris (An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect [repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968], §1552) calls the use of εἰς before the predicate of a substantive “a distinctly foreign element” and a Hebraism. 17 Cf. also Gen 2:10 μyvar h[bral hyhw drpy . . . rhn, ποταμὸς . . . ἀφορίζεται εἰς τέσσαρας ἀρχάς, in which an equivalent for hyhw is lacking in the lxx. 16

6

katri tenhunen

some other l instances in Gen 1:14 ttal wyhw . . . μymvh [yqrb tram yhy μynvw μymyl w μyd[wml w, γενηθήτωσαν φωστῆρες ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ

οὐρανοῦ . . . καὶ ἔστωσαν εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς καιροὺς καὶ εἰς ἡμέρας καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτούς; and in Exod 13:16 ˚yny[ ˆyb tpfwfl w h kdyAl[ twal hyhw, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου καὶ ἀσάλευτον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου. The first l case in this verse is rendered by εἰς + accusative but εἰς is not repeated before the adjective ἀσάλευτον ‘immovable’ which renders tpfwfl, ‘as bands’.

Verbs other than hyh In Genesis there are 30 and in Exodus 14 renderings of l with εἰς + accusative in cases with verbs other than l hyh, where εἰς is used instead of a double accusative. These cases are various. One main group to be distinguished is verbs of making, e.g., in cases such as ‘I will make you a great nation’, Gen 12:2 lwdg ywgl ˚c[aw, καὶ ποιήσω σε εἰς ἔθνος μέγα (also Exod 32:10). The same kinds of cases with the verb μyc rendered by ποιεῖν εἰς + accusative are Gen 21:13 (mt has only ywgl, not lwdg, but the translator has used the usual rendering εἰς ἔθνος μέγα), 21:18, and 46:3. Gen 17:20 with the verb ˆtn, which is rendered διδόναι . . . εἰς ἔθνος μέγα (here a better rendering would have been to use, for example, ποιεῖν as the equivalent of ˆtn). Other expressions of peoples/nations with the verb ˆtn are Gen 17:6 ˚yttnw μywgl, καὶ θήσω σε εἰς ἔθνη, ‘and I will make nations of you’ and Gen 48:4 μym[ lhql ˚yttnw, καὶ ποιήσω σε εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν. Some other examples of making, where l denotes establishing as (so as to be in a function) are: ‘establishing as an everlasting covenant’ μlw[ tyrbl μyqh, ἵστημι εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον in Gen 17:7 and 17:19; ‘establishing as a law’ in Gen 47:26 qjl πswy hta μcyw, καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοῖς Ιωσηφ εἰς πρόσταγμα. We can find examples of εἰς used in cases that denote entering into a new state or role, but the same kinds of cases are also often rendered without preposition. E.g., hval, ‘as wife’ instances are usually rendered by accusative γυναῖκα, but εἰς γυναῖκα occurs too: hval jql, λαμβάνειν εἰς γυναῖκα in Gen 12:19, 34:4, and Exod 6:20; and ˆtn hval, διδόναι εἰς γυναῖκα in Gen 34:12. One case with hyh, Gen 20:12, we have mentioned already. The use of εἰς in such cases, especially with hyh, is a Hebraism. With other verbs as well, accusative renderings are better Greek, although, e.g., λαμβάνειν εἰς γυναῖκα sometimes occurs


7

in original Greek texts.18 One case of hval in Genesis assumes another meaning, ‘to build into a woman’ in Gen 2:22: [lxhAta μyhla hwhy ˆbyw hval μdahAˆm jqlArva, καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν πλευράν ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Αδαμ εἰς γυναῖκα. Other cases that denote entering into a new state rendered by εἰς + accusative are ‘as slaves’, Gen 43:18 μydb[l jql, λαμβάνειν εἰς παῖδας and Gen 47:21, where the reading of the Septuagint Vorlage and the Samaritan Pentateuch, μydb[l wta dyb[h, is to be preferred to the reading of the mt ‘he moved them into the cities’: ryb[h μ[hAtaw μyr[l wta, καὶ τὸν λαὸν κατεδουλώσατο αὐτῷ εἰς παῖδας. Cases denoting division into something (in which the use of the preposition εἰς is necessary) and growing into a multitude are Gen 48:16 brl wgdyw, καὶ πληθυνθείησαν εἰς πλῆθος πολύ (cf. also 30:30), Gen 32:8 twnjm ynvl . . . ≈jyw, καὶ διεῖλεν . . . εἰς δύο παρεμβολάς. εἰς occurs three times in Exodus as a rendering of the verb l ˚ph ‘to turn into something’, μdl ˚ph in Exod 7:17 and 7:20 is rendered by μεταβάλλειν εἰς αἷμα, and 7:15 vjnl ˚phnArva hfmhw, καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον τὴν στραφεῖσαν εἰς ὄφιν. Lastly, there are various examples of cases which denote serving as something, e.g., Gen 23:9 and 23:20 buying land ‘as a possession for a burying place’ rbqAtzjal. The Greek rendering is εἰς κτῆσιν μνημείου in 23:9 and εἰς κτῆσιν τάφου in 23:20.19 Gen 23:17–18 is a similar case but has only the word ‘property’ hnqml rendered by εἰς κτῆσιν. There is also one case of μlw[ tzjal ˆtn in Gen 17:8 rendered by διδόναι . . . εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον. Four of the εἰς cases in Exodus are renderings of trmvml, ‘to be kept’ rendered by εἰς ἀποθήκην in Exod 16:23 and 16:32 and by εἰς διατήρησιν in 16:33 and 16:34: Exod 16:23 rqbhAd[ trmvml μkl wjynh πd[hAlk taw, καὶ πᾶν τὸ πλεονάζον καταλίπετε αὐτὸ εἰς ἀποθήκην εἰς τὸ πρωί.

There are 4 cases of hl[l, ‘as sacrifice’ in Genesis, in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:2, 7, 8, 13), rendered by εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν, e.g., Gen 22:8 hl[l hch wlAhary μyhla, ὁ θεὸς ὄψεται ἑαυτῷ πρόβατον εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν. In Exod 29:25 sacrifice ‘for a pleasing odour’ jwjyn jyrl

18 19

See more examples in Helbing, Kasussyntax, 62. Cf. Gen 49:30 and 50:13 where ἐν is used in renderings of the same idiom.

8

katri tenhunen

is rendered by εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας.20 Denoting purpose in a figurative sense, the idiom ‘for glory and for beauty’ appears in Exod 28:40 and Exod 28:2: traptlw dwbkl ˚yja ˆrhal vdqAydgb tyc[w, καὶ ποιήσεις στολὴν ἁγίαν Ααρων τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. The Hebrew verbal nouns rendered by εἰς + noun are a special group, in that they are close to the meaning and function of the l + infinitive construct cases. According to Soisalon-Soininen, verbal nouns should be understood as infinitives and handled together with them.21 Sometimes verbal nouns are rendered using infinitives, but there are some examples rendered by εἰς + accusative: Gen 1:15 μymvh [yqrb trwaml wyhw, καὶ ἔστωσαν εἰς φαῦσιν ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Gen 1:16 μwyh tlvmml ldgh rwamhAta μyldgh tramh ynvAta μyhla c[yw hlylh tlvmml ˆfqh rwamhAtaw, καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς δύο φωστῆρας τοὺς μεγάλους τὸν φωστῆρα τὸν μέγαν εἰς ἀρχὰς τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τὸν φωστῆρα τὸν ἐλάσσω εἰς ἀρχὰς τῆς νυκτός

εἰς βρῶσιν, ‘for food’ occurs as the equivalent of hlkal in Gen 1:29, 30; and 9:3; and as the equivalent of the infinitive construct lkal in Gen 47:24 (which also has one l + noun case expressing purpose, ‘as seed’, [rzl, εἰς σπέρμα). ἐν + Dative ἐν + dative occurs sometimes in Greek in certain constructions that are used in the place of a predicate nominative or a second accusative object.22 εἰς + accusative is the more common usage in this function.

20 In the lxx Leviticus and Numbers εἱς + accusative is almost without exception used to render the various l + noun cases denoting purpose ‘as sacrifice’ that are especially frequent in these two books. 21 Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF B 132, 1; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965), 121–22. I have not included the l + infinitive construct cases in the primary material of my dissertation because these were studied by Soisalon-Soininen, but the cases of l + verbal nouns are included in my material because they form a kind of middle group between infinitives and l + noun cases. 22 Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik, §431; Robert Helbing, Die Präpositionen bei Herodot und andern Historikern (Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache von M.v. Schanz, Heft 16; Würzburg: A. Stubers Verlag, 1904), 52–53; Helbing, Kasussyntax, 52; Conrad Roßberg, De Praepositionum Graecarum in Chartis Aegyptiis Ptolemaeorum Aetatis usu. (Diss. Ienae, 1909), 28.


9

The use of both εἰς and ἐν in quite similar cases may be due to the alleged ‘exchange’ of ἐν and εἰς in the Koine, or rather due to different understandings of ‘Richtung’ and ‘Ruhelage’, purpose aimed at or already achieved.23 Most of the renderings with ἐν seem to occur in cases of possession, property or portion. There are three renderings of the transitive l by ἐν in Genesis and two in Exodus. Gen 49:30 and 50:13 have ἐν in the expression ‘as possession for a burial place’: Gen 49:30 rbqAtzjal ytjh ˆrp[ tam hdchAta μhrba hnq rva, ὃ ἐκτήσατο Αβρααμ τὸ σπήλαιον παρὰ Εφρων τοῦ Χετταίου ἐν κτήσει μνημείου

The third ἐν case in Genesis, 17:11, is an interesting twal case where ἐν σημείῳ occurs instead of the more common rendering εἰς σημεῖον. According to Wevers, ἐν here expresses state or position, thus “shall exist in the capacity of a sign”:24 Gen 17:11 μkynybw ynyb tyrb twal hyhw μktlr[ rcb ta μtlmnw, καὶ περιτμηθήσεσθε τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας ὑμῶν καὶ ἔσται ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν

Exod 12:13 is another ‘as a sign’ case: μytbh l[ tal μkl μdh hyhw μv μta rva, καὶ ἔσται τὸ αἷμα ὑμῖν ἐν σημείῳ ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκιῶν ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐκεῖ. The other case, Exod 29:26, means ‘as a portion’: hyhw hnml ˚l, καὶ ἔσται σοι ἐν μερίδι. Nominative Renderings The predicate nominative is used only to render l hyh cases, the verb hyh being rendered in Greek as εἶναι or γίνεσθαι. There are 9 cases with nominative renderings in Genesis and 25 in Exodus, nominative being the most frequent rendering of l in our material in Exodus.

23 For the phenomenon of ἐν occurring where εἰς could be expected, see Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “ἐν für εἰς in der Septuaginta,” in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax (eds. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo; AASF B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 131–40; repr. from VT 32 (1982). Soisalon-Soininen studies mainly local cases and the verbs of motion. He separates the actual exchange of meaning of ἐν and εἰς from the different understanding of certain verbs expressing Ruhelage or Richtung. According to Soisalon-Soininen the exchange of meaning of ἐν and εἰς does not yet really exist in the lxx or in the Ptolemaic papyri but is later. See also Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri II:2, 371 (§111). 24 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 234.

10

katri tenhunen

Nominative renderings are used in cases that denote entering into new family relations and roles, such as the father of a multitude of nations in Gen 17:4 μywg ˆwmh bal tyyhw, καὶ ἔσῃ πατὴρ πλήθους ἐθνῶν; wife in Gen 24:67 hval wlAyhtw, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ γυνή; slave/servant in Gen 44:9 μydb[l yndal hyhn wnjnaAμgw, καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐσόμεθα παῖδες τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (cf. also 50:18). In Gen 49:15 we find a theological or interpretative rendering where the Hebrew ‘He became a tributary servant’ is rendered in Greek ‘He became a farmer’: db[Asml yhyw, καὶ ἐγενήθη ἀνὴρ γεωργός.25 μyhlal hyh, ‘to be God’ is rendered by εἶναι θεός in Gen 17:7, 17:8; Exod 6:7 and 29:45, e.g., Gen 17:8 μyhlal μhl ytyyhw, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός. Exod 4:16 has a special rendering for μyhlal hyh. In this case μyhlal does not refer to the Lord God but Aaron shall be to Moses as his mouth and Moses as God to Aaron. The lxx has an interpretative translation since a simple rendering by θεός would not have been suitable: according to the lxx, Moses shall be to Aaron ‘in things pertaining to God’, ‘the relations with God’. τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν is used also in Exod 18:19 as the equivalent of μyhlah lwm. Exod 4:16 μyhlal wlAhyht htaw hpl ˚lAhyhy awh hyhw, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται σου στόμα σὺ δὲ αὐτῷ ἔσῃ τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Examples of cases that figuratively denote entering a new role are Exod 10:17 where vqwml hyh, ‘to be a snare’ is rendered by nominative εἶναι σκῶλον. The same expression is rendered by γίνεσθαι πρόσκομμα in 34:12 and εἶναι πρόσκομμα in 23:33.26 Another main group of cases where nominative rendering is employed includes cases that express change or transformation into something. In Exodus, most nominative renderings occur in the story of the signs and miracles that Moses and Aaron worked: such renderings of yhyw l, ‘it became a . . .’ by γίνεσθαι + predicate nominative are: Exod 4:3 with vjnl, ὄφις; 4:4 hfml, ῥάβδος; 7:10 ˆyntl, δράκων; and 7:12 in 25 Cf. Suzanne Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante (Paris: Klincksieck, 1966), 60–61. According to Daniel, the traditional exegesis refused to interpret the Hebrew text literally and see one of the tribes of Israel (Issachar) being a tributary servant/servant at forced labour. In the Targums, Issachar is the one to whom tribute is paid. The lxx translation sees in the people of Issachar “des paysans prospères, casaniers, et préoccupés surtout de leurs champs”. 26 In Exod 23:33 vqwml ˚l hyhyAyk, οὗτοι ἔσονταί σοι πρόσκομμα has in the mt a third person singular form which is difficult in its context. In the lxx the plural pronoun οὗτοι is clarifying and refers to the Canaanite peoples that will be the occasion for stumbling.


11

plural μnyntl, δράκοντες. Renderings by εἶναι + nominative are: Exod 4:9 μdl, αἷμα; 7:9 ˆyntl, δράκων; and 8:12 μnkl, σκνῖφες. Exod 9:9 also demonstrates this kind of case; there, the first l instance is rendered by γίνεσθαι + predicate nominative and the second by εἶναι + nominative. Exod 4:3 vjnl yhyw hxra whkylvyw, καὶ ἔρριψεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐγένετο ὄφις Exod 9:9 ˆyjvl hmhbhAl[w μdahAl[ hyhw μyrxm ≈raAlk l[ qbal hyhw, καὶ γενηθήτω κονιορτὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἔσται ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τετράποδα ἕλκη

Next let us examine a few cases of ‘being or serving as something, being in the capacity of something’. Typical examples are cases such as ‘it shall be to them a perpetual ordinance’; ‘it shall be to you as a sign’; ‘it will be to you a memorial ’, e.g.: Exod 29:28 μlw[Aqjl wynblw ˆrhal hyhw, καὶ ἔσται Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ νόμιμον αἰώνιον

Exod 13:9 ˚yny[ ˆyb ˆwrkzl w ˚dyAl[ twal ˚l hyhw, καὶ ἔσται σοι σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου καὶ μνημόσυνον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου

ˆwrkzl hyh, εἶναι μνημόσυνον occurs also in Exod 12:14 and 30:16. The nominative is also used to express ‘use as something’. Such examples are Exod 30:4 ‘as places for staves’ tacl μydbl μytbl hyhw hmhb wta, καὶ ἔσονται ψαλίδες ταῖς σκυτάλαις ὥστε αἴρειν αὐτὸ ἐν αὐταῖς and Gen 11:3 (also a case in which a different rendering is used for the same kind of l + noun cases in a close context). Here the nominative rendering occurs after another l case that is rendered by εἰς + accusative. Gen 11:3 rmjl μhl hyh rmjhw ˆbal hnblh μhl yhtw, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς ἡ πλίνθος εἰς λίθον καὶ ἄσφαλτος ἦν αὐτοῖς ὁ πηλός

One case of ‘becoming a people’ is rendered using the nominative: Exod 9:24 ywgl htyh zam μyrxm ≈raAlkb, ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἀφʼ οὗ γεγένηται ἐπʼ αὐτῆς ἔθνος. The Hebrew text reads: ‘. . . in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation’; while the lxx: ‘. . . in Egypt, from the time there was a nation upon it’. In the mt, μyrxm means the people, but the lxx rendering changes this with the clarifying addition ἐπʼ αὐτῆς, so that the Greek Αἴγυπτος refers to the land. Since ἔθνος then becomes the

12

katri tenhunen

subject of the clause, the sense of ‘becoming a people’ is not present, rather ‘there was a people upon Egypt’.27 There are also some cases where the Greek rendering in the nominative is not a noun, but rather another kind of word, whereby the grammatical category has been changed, using participles and verbal adjectives as renderings of nouns. In two cases, l + noun has been rendered by a passive perfect participle; a participle of φυλάσσειν is used in Gen 41:36 as the equivalent of ˆwdqpl ‘something left in trust, kept in reserve’: ≈ral ˆwdqpl lkah hyhw, καὶ ἔσται τὰ βρώματα πεφυλαγμένα τῇ γῇ. In Exod 12:6, a participle of διατηριν is used to render a case of trmvml, ‘to be kept’: trmvml μkl hyhw, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν διατετηρημένον. In Exod 28:38 ˆwxrl, ‘to be acceptable’ is rendered by the nominative verbal adjective δεκτόν. Accusative Renderings The accusative can occur in renderings of l hyh only in the accusativus cum infinitivo construct, where the accusative is not due to the preposition l, but instead to the Greek idiomatic construction of the whole clause. There are two cases of accusativus cum infinitivo in the renderings of the transitive l in Genesis: Gen 38:15 with the verb bvj and 34:22 with the verb hyh. Gen 38:15 hnwzl hbvjyw hdwhy haryw, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν Ιουδας ἔδοξεν αὐτὴν πόρνην εἶναι Gen 34:22 dja μ[l twyhl wnta tbvl μyvnah wnl wtay tazbA˚a, μόνον ἐν τούτῳ ὁμοιωθήσονται ἡμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τοῦ κατοικεῖν μεθʼ ἡμῶν ὥστε εἶναι λαὸν ἒνα

The rest of the accusative renderings are renderings of verbs that are constructed with a double accusative in Greek, such as hc[, ποιεῖν; ˆtn, διδόναι; and jql, λαμβάνειν. In Genesis, the majority of the renderings of transitive l by the accusative (10 cases) are cases of giving or taking (someone for somebody) as wife, hval. Cases with the verb ˆtn, rendering being διδόναι . . . γυναῖκα are Gen 16:3; 29:28; 30:4, 9; 34:8; 38:14 and 41:45. Cases with the verb jql, rendered by λαμβάνειν . . . γυναῖκα are Gen 25:20, 28:9, 34:21 (in plural μyvnl/γυναῖκας). Also in Exodus there are three renderings of hval by the accusative γυναῖκα, Exod 27

Cf. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 137.


13

6:23 and 6:25 with jql, λαμβάνειν, and 22:15 with rhm rendered by φερνίζειν, ‘to pay the bridal price’. Gen 29:28 hval wl wtb ljrAta wlAˆtyw, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ Λαβαν Ραχηλ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτοῦ αὐτῷ γυναῖκα

One case of God taking Israel as his people is rendered using the accusative in Exod 6:7: μ[l yl μkta ytjqlw, καὶ λήμψομαι ἐμαυτῷ ὑμᾶς λαὸν ἐμοὶ. Other cases of entering a new state or role are those related to slaves and masters, like Gen 29:2428 and 29:29 hjpvl ˆtn, rendered by διδόναι . . . παιδίσκην; Gen 27:37 μydb[l ˆtn, rendered by ποιεῖν . . . οἰκέτας; Exod 21:7 selling one’s daughter to be a slave Aykw hmal wtbAta vya rkmy, ἐὰν δέ τις ἀποδῶται τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θυγατέρα οἰκέτιν. In Gen 45:8 and 45:9 we find cases of ‘making someone lord over something’.29 An interesting case is also Exod 2:14 vyal ˚mc ym wnyl[ fpvw rc, τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν ἐφʼ ἡμῶν.30 Gen 27:37 μydb[l wl yttn wyjaAlkAtaw ˚l wytmc rybg ˆh, εἰ κύριον αὐτὸν ἐποίησά σου καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐποίησα αὐτοῦ οἰκέτας

The predicate rybg without l is already rendered by accusative κύριον, and then the latter predicate case μydb[l is also rendered by the accusative. Accusative renderings occur in cases of order, law, and memorial: Exod 12:24 μlw[Ad[ ˚ynblw ˚lAqjl hzh rbdhAta μtrmvw, καὶ φυλάξεσθε τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο νόμιμον σεαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς σου ἕως αἰῶνος

28 In Gen 29:24 l is lacking in the mt, but it should be corrected according to some manuscripts to read hjpvl. 29 In 45:8 there is a case of ὡς + accusative before the one rendered by an accusative. 30 Most modern translations understand rc vyal μc as the Septuagint translation does, “made you a ruler or a judge over us” (RSV). Mitchell Dahood (“Vocative lamedh in Exodus 2,14 und Merismus in 34,21,” Bib 62 [1981]: 413–14) presents a quite unlikely interpretation of a vocative l occurring in this case. In my opinion, the existence of the alleged vocative meaning of l has not been sufficiently proved. According to Dahood, vyal has tended to disappear from Bible translations of Exod 2:14 since the lxx translation, while the real meaning of Hebrew vyal would be vocative and even expressing sarcasm ‘Who appointed you, O mortal, prince and judge over us?’ For such an interpretation there is no support at all, especially because l is frequently used to express transition into a new role in the same kind of cases. In fact, the lxx rendering ἄρχοντα is an idiomatical rendering of rc vyal (cf. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 18).

14

katri tenhunen Exod 28:12 ˆrkzl wyptk ytvAl[ hwhy ynpl μtwmvAta ˆrha acnw, καὶ ἀναλήμψεται Ααρων τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ἔναντι κυρίου ἐπὶ τῶν δύο ὤμων αὐτοῦ μνημόσυνον περὶ αὐτῶν

Accusative renderings used with adjectives: Exod 14:21 hbrjl μyhAta μcyw, καὶ ἐποίησεν τὴν θάλασσαν ξηράν

Other Renderings As a comparative particle, ὡς may also be used with predicates, both accusative and nominative. ὡς is, however, rare as a rendering of l. It occurs in my material from the Pentateuch only twice in Genesis: once in Gen 34:16 with a nominative and another time in Gen 45:8 with an accusative. In these two cases, ὡς is comparative (as, like), comparable to ὡς as the equivalent of k. The Greek in Gen 45:8 denotes similarity ‘as the father of the Pharaoh’. Gen 34:16 could, in fact, be a case where, analogous to the k expression of identity, ὡς denotes identity, not similarity: ‘we will be one people’. This does not, however, imply that the Hebrew l in either of these cases would mean identity or similarity, rather the use of ὡς denotes a meaning that was not present in the Hebrew text.31 Gen 34:16 dja μ[l wnyyhw, καὶ ἐσόμεθα ὡς γένος ἕν Gen 45:8 μyrxm ≈raAlkb lvmw wtybAlkl ˆwdalw h[rpl bal ynmycyw, καὶ ἐποίησέν με ὡς πατέρα Φαραω καὶ κύριον παντὸς τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄρχοντα πάσης γῆς Αἰγύπτου

Infinitives are used especially as renderings of verbal nouns. There are 2 cases in Genesis, of which Gen 32:9 is εἰς τό + infinitive (thus l has an equivalent), and 2 in Exodus. Gen 6:21 hlkal μhlw ˚l hyhw, καὶ ἔσται σοὶ καὶ ἐκείνοις φαγεῖν (cf. Exod 16:15)

31 Takamitsu Muraoka, “The Use of ΩΣ in the Greek Bible,” NovT 7 (1964): 56–57: “The translators are apparently independent of the original text, for it happens to show l instead of k. Besides the force of l, the original context indicates that there can be no talk about similarity or likeness.” Different interpretation on ὡς in 34:16 is given by Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 566): according to him lxx avoids here a complete identification with the Hemmor clan and says that they will only appear to be such.


15

Gen 32:9 hfylpl rvnh hnjmh hyhw whkhw tjah hnjmhAla wc[ awbyAμa, ἐὰν ἔλθῃ Ησαυ εἰς παρεμβολὴν μίαν καὶ ἐκκόψῃ αὐτήν ἔσται ἡ παρεμβολὴ ἡ δευτέρα εἰς τὸ σῴζεσθαι Exod 12:13 μyrxm ≈rab ytkhb tyjvml πgn μkb hyhyAalw, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν

ὑμῖν πληγὴ τοῦ ἐκτριβῆναι32 ὅταν παίω ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ

Finally, there is one good free rendering where the construction is changed, Gen 38:23 with a finite verb instead of a noun. The Hebrew ‘we shall become a laughingstock’ is rendered by the verb καταγελᾶν ‘we shall be laughed at’: zwbl hyhn ˆp hlAjqt, ἐχέτω αὐτά ἀλλὰ μήποτε καταγελασθῶμεν. In all these we must point out that the infinitive or finite verb used in Greek is not the direct rendering of the preposition l, but rather the phrase including l is rendered as a whole. Conclusions

l of transition and purpose is not translated by only one equivalent

in Greek in Septuagint Genesis or Exodus, and cases that are similar in Hebrew undergo various renderings in the lxx. The use of εἰς + accusative is, however, common in Genesis due to εἰς being a literal rendering of l. This also occurs often in l hyh cases that should be rendered by the nominative. The frequent use of εἰς in these kinds of cases brings at least ‘Hebraistic flavour’ to the translation. The use of εἰς + accusative does occur in Greek texts instead of an accusative predicate but rarely instead of a nominative predicate. In Genesis, there are 40 l hyh cases and one nominal clause, of which 26 (65%) are rendered by εἰς + accusative, 9 by nominative, one by accusative (accusativus cum infinitivo), one by ἐν, one by ὡς, two by infinitive, and one case with a free rendering using a finite verb. The number of εἰς + accusative used as the rendering of cases like ‘to be something, to be as something, to become into something’ is notable. The rest of the cases in Genesis occur with verbs that can be constructed either with a double accusative or εἰς + accusative. Of these cases, 30 are rendered by εἰς + accusative, 17 by accusative (one of these accusativus cum infinitivo), 1 ὡς, 1 ἐπί and 2 ἐν. There is a difference

32 It would be also possible to interpret this l as a genitive case meaning ‘plague of destruction’ as Jenni, Die Präposition Lamed, 81.

16

katri tenhunen

when Genesis and Exodus are compared. In Exodus, a nominative predicate is much more common, and εἰς + accusative quite rare, in the renderings of l hyh cases. Exodus has 34 l hyh cases, of which 24 (70%) use nominative predicate, 6 εἰς + accusative,33 2 ἐν, 1 ἐπί and 1 infinitive. The other cases, where either double accusative or εἰς + accusative can be expected, are 15 accusative cases, 14 εἰς + accusative, 1 nominative,34 1 κατά and 1 infinitive. Nominative is the most common rendering used for transitive l in Exodus, occurring in my material 25 times (38% of all cases). It seems to me that using the nominative rendering for l hyh cases when expressing becoming something or result was the usual and most suitable manner of translating these cases for the lxx translator of Exodus. I think that Wevers’ comments on some of these cases are a bit misleading when he says that the translator of Exodus has “disregarded the preposition l”;35 the translator was not disregarding the preposition but, in my estimation, saw the nominative with γίνεσθαι or εἶναι as the best, idiomatic rendering for l hyh.

33 Exod 13:16 where εἰς is used in the first case but the preposition is not repeated in the second is counted here as two εἰς cases. 34 Exod 21:2 μnj yvpjl axy ἀπελεύσεται ἐλεύθερος δωρεάν, which is a special case, nominative referring to the subject of the clause. 35 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990), see pages 128 on Exod 9:9, 137 on Exod 9:24 and 148 on Exod 10:7.

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA IN THE VULGATE Seppo Sipilä The Vulgate as an Ancient Version 20 years ago Raija Sollamo published an article which dealt with the Septuagint version of the book of Joshua.1 In this article she delineated her view about the nature of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek translation. According to her, the Hebrew Vorlage was different from the Masoretic Text. She thought that the Masoretic Text is a later edition of the book of Joshua, and that the Vorlage represented an older edition of the book.2 The importance of this article lies not in the description of the relationship between the mt and the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx, but in the methodological ideas expressed and practiced in her article of 1987. According to Sollamo, anyone willing to describe the lxx text of Joshua—and of any other book of the lxx—first has to solve two difficult problems. 1) First, one has to reconstruct the Greek text that the translator produced and to study the translation process, an area I shall call translation technique. 2) Only after that can one turn to questions related to the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx.3 When we study the translation process, translation technique, we must make some presuppositions. First, we must assume that the Hebrew Vorlage was close enough to the mt for us to use the mt as the basis for further study. Secondly, we must carefully separate passages or parts of the text where the Vorlage was likely similar to the mt from those where the Vorlage was probably different from the mt. We must, then, base the study of the translation technique only on those passages where the Vorlage can be seen as close to the mt.4 It should not come as a surprise

1 Raija Sollamo, “Joosuan kirjan Septuaginta-käännöksen luonteesta,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 92 (1987): 191–98. 2 Sollamo pointed out that e.g. Emanuel Tov held the same view about the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx Joshua (Sollamo, “Joosuan kirja,” 198). 3 Sollamo, “Joosuan kirja,” 192. 4 Sollamo, “Joosuan kirja,” 193–94.

18

seppo sipilä

to anyone that Sollamo’s contributions to the field of Septuagint studies and methodology have been important to me.5 In this article, I shall focus on the Vulgate and discuss the way Jerome produced his translation of Joshua. The translation technique of the Vulgate has not been subject of many studies. In fact, I do not know of any detailed study of the translation technique of Joshua in the Vulgate. One reason for this must be that Jerome himself described his translation technique to some extent, and accordingly we may suppose that his comments offer a reliable starting point. The most well known case of Jerome’s description of his translation technique comes from one of his letters to Pammachius. The letter is entitled De optimo genere interpretandi.6 Jerome wrote: Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu (§5). Jerome, then, would normally translate Greek into Latin by following the sense of the text, but in case of the Bible he would follow a word for word method, because according to him even the word order in the Bible contains mystery and should be honoured accordingly. Thus, we may assume that the Vulgate is a literal translation of the Bible, or at least that Jerome intended to produce a literal translation when he began his translation of the OT. Taking the claim that the Vulgate is a literal translation as our starting point let us next study some examples illustrating the way Jerome actually created the translation. I have selected the first examples from the area of syntax. When studying the translation technique of the lxx, syntax has proved to be a fruitful area of study. By considering issues like parataxis and the renderings of causal clauses, scholars have been able to draw conclusions that seem to have permanent significance when we try to understand how the lxx translators conducted their task of translation. I am assuming here that there is no difference methodologically between the lxx and the Vulgate, when it comes to the study of translation technique.

5 See e.g. Seppo Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom (Publication of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999), 17–18. 6 The letter in question is number 57. The letter itself deals with the translation of a theological tractate and the criticism that some people had expressed concerning Jerome’s Latin translation of this particular tractate. For the critical edition of the letter, see Jerome, Lettres 3 (Texte établi et traduit par Jérôme Labourt; Paris: Société d’Édition „Les Belles Lettres“, 1953).

the book of joshua in the vulgate

19

Renderings of Apodotic w A special area within the parataxis of Hebrew is the use of a coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a main clause preceded by one or several subordinate clauses. I shall call this type of coordinating conjunction “apodotic.” The issue is typical for Hebrew but rare in languages like Greek. In Greek, constant use of the coordinating conjunction καί to render the apodotic w will create atypical language, and thus scholars have held the use of the apodotic καί to be a good illustration of translation technique.7 We may here assume that Latin behaves in this respect like Greek. The constant use of a coordinating conjunction in opening an apodosis would be atypical in Latin. Therefore, it would be an indication of literal translation technique employed by Jerome, the assumption being that the literal translation technique would produce cases with a visible counterpart for the Hebrew apodotic w. There are 52 cases of apodotic w in the mt of Joshua. In the clear majority of these cases, Jerome left the Hebrew conjunction without a visible Latin counterpart. I believe that one example is enough to illustrate these cases. 8:14 wmykçyw wrhmyw" y[h ˚lm twark yhyw—quod cum vidisset rex Ahi ___ festinavit mane (when the king of Ahi had noticed this, he hurried at morning) Jerome left the apodotic w without visible counterpart and he dealt with the Hebrew formulaic expression yhyw in the same way.

There are, however, cases where et appears in place of w at the beginning of the apodosis. In these cases, one is often tempted to interpret et not as a conjunction but as an adverb. The following examples will illustrate these cases. 2:5 waxy μyçnahw" ˚çjb rwgsl r[çh yhyw—cumque porta clauderetur in tenebris et illi pariter exierunt (when the gate was being closed at dark, they went out, too) 4:11 ˆwra rb[yw" rwb[l μ[h lk μt rçak yhyw—cumque transissent omnes transivit et arca Domini (when everyone had crossed, the ark of the Lord crossed, too)

7 See esp. Anneli Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Litt. 31; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1982), 126–47. For the book of Joshua, see Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom, 124–26.

20

seppo sipilä 14:12 hwhy rbd rçak μytçrwhw" ytwa hwhy ylwa—si forte sit Dominus mecum et potuero delere eos sicut promisit mihi (if the Lord will be with me, I can also destroy them, as he promised me)

There is one case, where et is actually a real coordinating conjunction between the subordinate clause and the apodosis. 6:8 μylbwyh twrpwç h[bç μyaçn μynhkh h[bçw" μ[h la [çwhy rmak yhyw μhyrja ˚lh hwhy tyrb ˆwraw twrpwçb w[qtw wrb[ hwhy ynpl—cumque Iosue verba finisset et septem sacerdotes septem bucinis clangerent ante arcam foederis Domini (when Joshua had stopped the words, and the seven priests played the seven horns before the Ark of the covenant of the Lord) I shall return to this example later in this article. It may well be that Jerome concentrated on translating the content of the apodosis and therefore he did not consider the Hebrew conjunction.

In addition, there is one case of interest from the translational point of view. The Latin text in this case seems to include a visible counterpart of the Hebrew conjunction, but it is not et. 2:12 dsj yba tyb μ[ μta μg μtyç[w" dsj μkm[ ytyç[ yk—ut quomodo ego feci vobiscum misericordiam ita et vos faciatis cum domo patris mei (as I did mercy to you, you will do mercy to my father’s house, too) Jerome decided to use the Latin ut . . . ita—construction here, resulting in an explicit Latin rendering of the Hebrew apodotic w.

The conclusion from a closer look at the renderings of apodotic w is clear. When dealing with this special syntactic feature of Hebrew, Jerome did not use verbum e verbo translation technique in the limited sense of the expression, but preferred to follow common Latin idiom and better style. Renderings of Causal yk When studying the lxx, we have found that the renderings of the conjunction yk can be used to describe the translation technique. This is the case especially with the causal uses of the conjunction yk.8 Again, if we assume that Latin shares some similarities with Greek in this respect, we may also look at the way Jerome handled the causal conjunctions yk in 8 Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 17–36. The most revealing point is the number of times where a Greek conjunction γάρ acts as the counterpart for the Hebrew causal conjunction in the lxx.


21

the book of Joshua. How we calculate the number of causal cases of yk will depend on how we interpret the specific texts where yk appears. I shall assume that the method of interpretation developed by Aejmelaeus is applicable as the starting point for the analysis.9 Thus, there are 64 cases of causal clauses beginning with yk in the mt of Joshua.10 This does not mean that Jerome would have interpreted all of the cases in the same way as I will suggest in the table below: Table. Latin renderings for Hebrew causal yk in Joshua Latin counterpart Enim Quia Et Quoniam Other Total

Number of cases 23 10 5 4 22 64

This table lists the most common renderings for Hebrew causal yk in Vulgate Joshua. The group “Other” includes all the cases where the Latin counterpart of the Hebrew conjunction is used less that 4 times.

Out of the 64 cases of causal yk Jerome did not interpret the majority by using a causal counterpart in Latin. On the contrary, Jerome’s most common rendering for causal yk is the Latin conjunction enim, a loose adversative coordinator. The following examples will illustrate the suitability of enim as counterpart of Hebrew causal yk. 1:6 ≈rah ta hzh μ[h ta lyjnt hta yk ≈maw qzj—confortare et esto robustus tu enim sorte divides populo huic terram (become courageous and be strong for you will divide the land amongst the people) 24:19 awh awnq la awh μyçdq μyhla yk hwhy ta db[l wlkwt al—non poteritis servire Domino Deus enim sanctus et fortis aemulator est (you will not be able to serve the Lord for he is a holy and strongly jealous God)

Ten times Jerome used the Latin conjunction quia marking a clear causal clause.

9 10

See Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators, 166–85. See also Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom, 165–68.

22

seppo sipilä 3:4 lwmtm ˚rdb μtrb[ al yk hb wklt rça ˚rdh ta w[dt rça ˆ[ml μwçlç—ut procul videre possitis et nosse per quam viam ingrediamini quia prius non

ambulastis per eam (so that you may see from the distance and know which way to walk, because you have not previously walked on it)

Four times he employed the conjunction quoniam with the same result. 1:9 ˚yhla hwhy ˚m[ yk tjt law ≈r[t la—noli metuere et noli timere quoniam tecum est Dominus Deus tuus (do not be scared and do not be afraid, because the Lord your God is with you)

This means that in most cases Jerome avoided using a clear causal rendering for the causal conjunction in Hebrew. It is also noteworthy that the variety of Latin counterparts for the Hebrew causal yk is large. This is striking, if Jerome was trying to compose a literal Latin translation of the book of Joshua. Should we now conclude that he perhaps failed in his attempt to produce a literal translation? Perhaps we ought to conclude that he did not actually translate Joshua verbum e verbo, even though the letter to Pammachius indicates this. This conclusion finds support from the following examples, where Jerome restructured the Hebrew expression while translating it. 4:24(25) ayh hqzj yk hwhy dy ta ≈rah ym[ lk t[d ˆ[ml—ut discant omnes terrarum populi fortissimam Domini manum (so that all the people of the nations would know the mighty hand of the Lord) One can argue here that the Hebrew yk—clause is not causal at all, but an object clause following a verb of perception. This does not change our conclusion that the case does not represent a literal translation in the plain sense of the word. 7:3 hmh f[m yk μ[h lk ta hmç [gyt la—quare omnis populus frustra vexatur contra hostes paucissimos (why trouble the whole nation in vain against few enemies) Here Jerome treated the whole expression in Hebrew freely.

The conclusions from studying the handling of Hebrew causal clauses strengthen the conclusions reached in the first part of this essay on the apodotic w. Admittedly, the material discussed is limited and relates only to clause connections in a restricted way. I would still claim that the basic conclusion is correct. Jerome did not try to translate verbum e verbo, but, on the contrary, tried to express the plain sense of the Hebrew text.


23

Joshua 6:6–9 as an Example The sixth chapter of our book is one of the best-known parts of Joshua. The capture of Jericho and the miracle that took place provide a an endless source for interpretive exploration. Verses 6–9 of this chapter will function here as a test case for how easily we can explain the differences between the Vulgate and the mt as translational. 6:6

μynhkh la ˆwn ˆb [çwhy arqyw—vocavit ergo Iosue filius Nun sacerdotes Jerome used the Latin conjunction ergo for the Hebrew conjunction w. This is not the only place where he used this Latin rendering of the w. In fact, he employed several different ways of handling the Hebrew coordinating conjunction. tyrbh ˆwra ta waç μhla rmayw—et dixit ad eos tollite arcam foederis Even though Jerome often employed foedus for the Hebrew tyrb, he also rendered the Hebrew term with pactum. μylbwy twrpwç h[bç waçy μynhk hxbçw—et septem alii sacerdotes tollant septem

iobeleorum bucinas

Because Joshua addresses the command to carry the Ark to the priests, Jerome found it necessary to make a separation between the priests carrying the Ark and those carrying the horns. In order to achieve this he added alii. When he rendered the Hebrew μylbwy as iobeleorum, one wonders whether he considered the similarity in pronunciation when selecting the Latin rendering, or if the similarity is merely accidental. hwhy ˆwra ynpl—et incedant ante arcam Domini Because Jerome decided to render the Hebrew verb açn as tollo at the beginning of the verse, he obviously felt a need to add here a verb (and a conjunction) in order to say that the priests not only carried the horns, but also walked before the Ark. 6:7

μ[h la wrmayw—ad populum quoque ait The Latin word order is the opposite of the Hebrew one. The Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of the clause is left without visible counterpart in the Latin. Jerome followed the Qere reading (rmayw). The focus

24

seppo sipilä

is now shifted from the priests to the people. Jerome indicates this by adding quoque. ry[h ta wbsw wrb[—vadite et circuite civitatem In the Vulgate the Latin renderings for the Hebrew ry[ are civitas and urbs. Jerome seems to have employed both of these rather freely in his translation of Joshua. hwhy ˆwra ynpl rb[y ≈wljhw—armati praecedentes arcam Domini Jerome made the people the subject of the verb rb[. In the Hebrew the subject is the nominalized participle ≈wlj. He also combined the verb and the semipreposition in Hebrew into the Latin verb ( praecedo). 6:8

μ[h la [çwhy rmak yhyw—cumque Iosue verba finisset Jerome combined the Hebrew formula yhyw and the infinitive construction by making them a subordinate clause in Latin (cf. my earlier examples 2:5 and 4:11). He employed a contextually suitable rendering verba finisset for the Hebrew rmak. The rest of tverse 8 is much shorter in the Latin than in the Hebrew. twrpwçb w[qtw wrb[ hwhy ynpl μylbwyh twrpwç h[bç μyaçn μynhkh h[bçw μhyrja ˚lh hwhy tyrb ˆwraw—et septem sacerdotes septem bucinis clangerent ante arcam foederis Domini

It seems that Jerome condensed the Hebrew text and only translated the key elements of it. This resulted in a loss of the function of the priest as carrying the horns. It also resulted in a loss of the attribute iobeleorum. Finally, the Latin text does not say that the priests and the Ark were moving, because Jerome decided to prioritize the function of the priests as players of the horns. However, all the lost elements are present in the preceding context, so Jerome might have thought that the sacrifice of some elements is not crucial for understanding the passage. This passage also includes the only clear case of et at the beginning of an apodosis. 6:9

μynhkh ynpl ˚lh ≈wljhw—omnisque praecederet armatus exercitus Because it is clear from the context that the armed men went ahead of the priests, Jerome could omit the visible counterpart for priests in


25

Latin. Again the Hebrew verb ˚lh and the semipreposition ynpl are combined into a single Latin verb. For the Hebrew twrpwçh w[qt there is no rendering in the Latin. It could be that Jerome found it enough to mention the blowing of the horns in the previous verse and at the end of this verse and accordingly left it out at this point.11 ˚wlh ˆwrah yrja ˚lh πsamhw—reliquum vulgus arcam sequebatur It is not certain how Jerome understood the Hebrew infinitive attached with the Ark, but, in any case, he left it without a visible counterpart. Since the text already indicated that the priests carried the Ark (v. 6), he might have wanted to avoid repetition. twrpwçb [wqtw—ac bucinis omnia concrepabant Since the reader is tempted to interpret the accusative omnia as the object of the verb concrepo, the Latin starts to look interesting. Does this rendering already include a reference to what will happen on the seventh day? Maybe Jerome was pondering the meaning of the preposition b. If he understood it as instrumental, the verb would then mean “to give a blow”. Giving a blow with the horn must mean that we shake something by using the sound of the horn. This brief look at one short passage and the way Jerome translated it demonstrates that we may explain most of the deviations from the wording of the mt as a result of Jerome’s translation process. The only real difference in this passage between the mt and the Vulgate lies at the beginning of verse 7 where Jerome followed the Qere. Even here I hesitate to describe the difference as being between the mt and Jerome’s Hebrew text. Jerome might simply have interpreted the text in accordance with an alternative reading in Qere. After all, the Qere makes a lot of sense. Conclusions The examples in this paper can be explained as a result of Jerome’s translation technique. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence implies

11 When Sollamo translated the book of Joshua for the new Finnish Bible, she interpreted this horn playing differently. According to her translation, the crowd that followed the Ark was also playing the horns, not just the seven priests.

26

seppo sipilä

that Jerome did not follow the verbum e verbo translation technique when translating the book of Joshua into Latin. There seems to be a tension between the translation of Joshua and the description of Jerome’s translation technique in his letter to Pammachius. Jerome handled the Hebrew text, at least on occasion, with some freedom. The free translation technique is interesting, especially when it is compared with Jerome’s characterization of the literal character of his translation. This conclusion supports the claims by Kedar and Fernández Marcos that in some books Jerome’s theory and practice are in conflict and that he did not always translate verbum e verbo.12 Consequently, my examples hardly include any cases of real difference between the mt and Jerome’s Hebrew Vorlage. However, the freedom in translation practice makes any study of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Vulgate in Joshua far more complicated and interesting than Jerome’s own description suggests. If Jerome employed freedom from the Hebrew words while translating, it is difficult to filter out the cases where Jerome’s Hebrew text deviated from the mt.

12 B. Kedar, “The Latin Translations,” in Mikra (ed. M. J. Mulder; Assen, 1988), 299–339, esp. 326; and Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Genuine Text of Judges,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (eds. Y. Goldman et al.; VTSup 110; Brill: Leiden 2006), 33–45, esp 37–38.

FLORA IN CANTICO CANTICORUM TOWARDS A MORE PRECISE CHARACTERISATION OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE IN THE LXX OF SONG OF SONGS Bénédicte Lemmelijn* Towards an Adequate Characterisation of the Translation Technique of the Septuagint Writing a contribution to a festschrift in honour of Prof. Dr. Raija Sollamo is no simple undertaking. Given the fact that the festschrift is also intended as a birthday gift, it seemed appropriate to follow tradition and ‘say it with flowers.’ It is for this reason, therefore, that the present contribution will focus on flowers in the Septuagint, in the hope that Raija Sollamo will find it both a fitting and an original surprise. At the same time, however, the fact that Sollamo’s primary research domain has been the translation technique of the Septuagint introduces a degree of ‘risk’ to this undertaking of which the author is painfully aware. Nevertheless, the goal of the present article is to contribute to the domain in question. In more concrete terms, I would like to begin with the moment I first came to know R. Sollamo: the Helsinki IOSCS congress in 1999. Having recently defended my PhD at the time, I presented a paper at the 1999 congress in which I described two methodological trends in the standard studies on translation technique in the lxx.1 Reference was made in my conclusion to A. Aejmelaeus, who maintains that everything depends on the way one approaches

* The author is Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Faculty of Theology of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) and staff member of the Leuven Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism. She is also postdoctoral research fellow of the Research Foundation—Flanders (Belgium). 1 Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint,” in Helsinki Perspectives: On the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (eds. Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 62; Helsinki/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 43–63.

28

bénédicte lemmelijn

the translation technique of the Septuagint.2 One can view translation technique as a research object in itself or as a methodological step in the study of linguistic phenomena in a translation. If one perceives translation technique as a research object in itself, this implies that the translators of the Septuagint employed a specific technique or self-conscious methodology that can be detected in their translations. This presupposition constitutes the point of departure for all studies that collect the available material and examine it in the first instance, on the basis of the literalness of the translators, taking different aspects into account such as word order, consistency and quantitative representation. With the help of the computer, precise results that give expression to the literalness of the various translators are rendered statistically. However, as has become evident my own work,3 this approach requires correction and fine-tuning with respect to both its presuppositions and methodology. However, translation technique, can be viewed equally as a methodological step in the study of linguistic phenomena of the translation. When such an approach is used, the results are easier to interpret and are more reliable. Moreover, they can be employed more fruitfully in other sub-disciplines, in particular the textual criticism of both the Greek and Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Percentages that render the results of analysis in statistical terms can also be employed in such an instance, to facilitate, for example, the comparison of different books. Such statistics are never employed in se, however, as an indication of the degree of literalness or freedom of a translation. This methodology appropriately accounts for the various factors that may have influenced the translation process and thereby offers reliable explanations of specific linguistic phenomena in the Greek text. This latter method, which could be identified grosso modo with the method of the so-called ‘Finnish School,’ is described somewhat poetically by Aejmelaeus as ‘the following of the trail of the translators.’ Against this background, Finnish scholars do not completely reject the first approach but they emphasise the fact—and I personally agree—that the exercise thereof must always go hand in hand with careful linguistic and grammatical research into the literal and free renderings of various linguistic phe-

2 Cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators (Collected Essays; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 1–4. 3 Lemmelijn, “Two Methodological Trails,” 43–63.

flora in cantico canticorum

29

nomena.4 The (statistically expressed) characterisation of the literalness of a translation cannot be used adequately if it is not combined with and adjusted by a detailed grammatical study of the literal and free renderings of different linguistic phenomena. In light of this methodological consideration, the present contribution hopes to make a specific contribution to the study of the translation technique of the Septuagint in relation to Song of Songs. The broader research context of this contribution endeavours to determine, on the basis of linguistic, semantic and stylistic analysis, whether the Greek text of Song of Songs is arranged in an idiomatic Greek that aspires to create a parallel poetic Greek Song of Songs, or whether it can be described as a more or less ‘slavish’ rendering of the Hebrew original, which has ultimately displaced the latter’s finesse and poetic range.5 In order to answer this question adequately, a variety of different criteria need to be explored that, taken together and in a complementary fashion rather than exclusively or autonomously, can provide some indications with respect to the precise and appropriate characterisation of the lxx translation of Song of Songs.6 Against this particular methodological presupposition, H. Ausloos and I have recently made a study of the

4 Anneli Aejmelaeus, “The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint,” in Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1987), 361–80, especially 378; repr. in On the Trail: “As for the methodology, the most ideal way of studying the translation technique is to combine it with linguistic research using the translation-technical method, as described above. Actually, translation technique cannot be adequately described without this connection to language usage. For a concrete example of the combination of both approaches, reference can be made for example to the method of R. Sollamo whose linguistic study of the literal and free translation of Hebrew semiprepositions also explores the degree to which the latter are consistently translated (“stereotyping tendency”). Cf. Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Litt. 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 280–89. 5 The more general research context of this question is my Postdoctoral Research Project, funded by the Research Foundation Flanders: ‘Traduire, c’est trahir’? The literary character of the Septuagint Translation of Canticles: Hebrew poetry rendered in Greek or Greek poetry? (2006–2009), in the application for which Professor Sollamo functioned as one of my international referees. 6 Cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translator: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter,” in The Old Greek Psalter (eds. Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude. E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry; JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 54–73, especially 55: “The translators show different capabilities in different areas. For the task of describing one particular translator, this means that we must strive to provide as many-sided a documentation of his working habits and abilities as possible.”

30


hapax legomena in the Greek text of Song of Songs.7 The results of the study in question turned out to be quite surprising. While previous studies of the lxx of Song of Songs have tended to characterise it as ‘slavish’—albeit without careful analysis of the translation technique8— our research has clearly demonstrated that for the majority of Greek equivalents for the fifteen absolute hapax legomena in the Hebrew of Song of Songs, a Greek translator is evident who may have been ‘faithful’ to the context and meaning of his Hebrew Vorlage, but was also ‘free’ in his Greek rendering thereof. It should be noted with respect to this characterisation of the translator of Song of Songs that we consider it important to emphasise the fact that the classical distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations must be understood in a nuanced manner. Together with A. Aejmelaeus, we are of the opinion that the analysis of translations must be fully aware of the difference between ‘literalness’ and ‘faithfulness.9 An extremely literal translation need not necessarily imply a particular faithful translation, just as a free translation need not be understood per se as less faithful. A good free translation may in fact be very faithful with respect to its Vorlage,10 while a literal translation

7 Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love. Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs,” in Translating a Translation. The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (eds. Hans Ausloos, et al.; BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming 2008, 43–62). This article represents a paper given at the Specialist’s Symposium on the Septuagint Translation, organised from 4–6 December 2006 by the Leuven Centre of Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism (dir. H. Ausloos), within the framework of a Joint Project of Bilateral Scientific Cooperation (K. U. Leuven, Belgium/ Stellenbosch University, South Africa), promoter: Florentino García Martínez; copromoters: Hans Ausloos, Johann Cook, Bénédicte Lemmelijn and Marc Vervenne. 8 Cf., for example, Gillis Gerleman, Ruth—Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 77: “Eine fast sklavische Treue gegen den hebräischen Text scheint die griechische Übersetsung druchgehend zu prägen.” See also Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or The Song of Songs (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990), 9: “The G translation of the Song attempted to represent scrupulously the Hebrew Vorlage. Indeed, the results are sometimes faithful to a fault, sacrificing Greek idiom in favour of a woodenly literal approach to the Hebrew.” 9 Cf. Aejmelaeus, “The Significance of Clause Connectors,” 378: “A distinction should be made between literalness and faithfulness.” See also Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch,” in Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax: Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (eds. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo; AASF B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 86–103, especially 88; repr. from Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicato (StudOr 55; Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1984): “Sie haben den Text möglichst getreu wiedergeben wollen, nicht aber wortwörtlich.” 10 Cf. Aejmelaeus, “The Significance of Clause Connectors,” 378: “Changing the structure of a clause or a phrase, and by so doing replacing an un-Greek expres-


31

may be less faithful on account of an extremely consistent selection of translation equivalents that do not always do justice to the demands of semantics.’11 With this in mind, the aforementioned study of the translation equivalents for the hapax legomena in Song of Songs allowed us to characterise the translator as ‘faithful’ and still ‘free,’ at least with regard to this specific aspect of the translation technique: he remains faithful to the content of his Vorlage, but is ‘free’ at the same time in his Greek rendering thereof. As such, therefore, the translator of Song of Songs reveals himself to be competent in his ability to search for creative solutions in the translation of a Hebrew poetical text into an equally poetical Greek text. Against this background and bearing in mind the perspective of the Finnish school—more comprehensive characterisation of translation

sion by a genuine Greek one closely corresponding to the meaning of the original, is quite a different thing from being recklessly free and paying less attention to the correspondence with the original. . . . A good free rendering is a faithful rendering.”; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques. A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (eds. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 381–402, especially 389 and 391; repr. in On the Trail; Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions with ˆm in the Greek Pentateuch,” in Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen. Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax: Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (eds. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo; AASF B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 141–53, see especially 152; repr. from BIOSCS 12 (1979): “Now and again very free renderings of the whole sentence occur. For the most part they are skilful translations and correspond to the original meaning very well.” 11 Cf. also Staffan Olofsson, “Consistency as a Translation Technique,” SJOT 6 (1992): 14–30, especially 16, 18; Emanuel Tov, “Three Dimensions of lxx Words,” RB 83 (1976): 529–44, 535: “Since the consistent representation of Hebrew words by one Greek equivalent often was more important to the translators than contextually plausible renderings, their technique was bound to do injustice to several Greek words. For the translators also often used a stereotyped equivalent of a Hebrew word when the meaning of the Hebrew did not suit that of the Greek.”; Id., The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. (2d ed.; Revised and Enlarged; Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 22: “The majority of stereotyped renderings do not adequately cover all meanings of a given Hebrew word”; and Galen Marquis, “Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the lxx of Ezekiel,” in Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 405–24, especially 408–9: “However, the moment one refers to the semantic level, to the meaning of words, it immediately becomes clear that the method of automatic and fixed translations was not successful in every case. The reason for this is that the ranges of meanings of words and their function in two different languages is far from identical, and as a result the fixed translation may not be appropriate in certain contexts.”

32


technique through the use of as many different criteria as possible12—the present article offers an analysis of the lxx of Song of Songs from an alternative, highly specific perspective. In what follows, we will examine the way in which the Hebrew nomenclature for flora and the rural landscape, which often has a metaphorical significance in the poetry of Song of Songs, is rendered in Greek. To this end, a number of specific questions will need to be answered: do the Greek translation equivalents have the same lexical meaning and, perhaps, more importantly, do they bear the same poetical or metaphorical connotations? If this is not the case, can one argue that the Greek may have opted for an alternative equivalent, which had a similar range to the original but did not refer literally to the same plant/flower? Anyone who speaks more than one language will know how difficult it is to maintain a reasonable command of specific jargon in a foreign idiom. For example, the various different names ascribed to birds or the common terms associated with the cold meats one finds at the local butcher are often not so evident to the non-native speaker. The same was true for the Greek translator of Song of Songs when he was confronted with a plethora of Hebrew words for flowers, plants, trees and spices and had to render them into Greek. In the first instance, he had to recognize the plant being referred to by the Hebrew term in question13—made all the more complicated by the fact that Song of Songs contains a number of hapax legomena14—and then proceed to search for an appropriate Greek equivalent.15

12 Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique,” VT 32 (1982): 385–93, especially 393; repr. in On the Trail: “To get closer to the truth about them [the different Septuagint translators—B.L.], we need both as many criteria as possible to evaluate them, and a due attention to the influence of the Hebrew text.” 13 This article does not primarily aim at describing or identifying the different kinds of plants from a biological perspective. See in this respect Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200 Full-Color Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Cf. Also, more recently Virginie Minet-Mahy, “Étude des métaphores végétales dans trois commentaires sur le Cantique des cantiques (Origène, Apponius, Bernard de Clairvaux),” in Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 46 (2003): 159–89; J. S. Du Toit and Jacobus A. Naudé, “Lost in Translation: Designation, Identification and Classifcation of Flora in Translated Biblical Hebrew Texts,” in JNSL 31/2 (2005): 33–58. 14 Cf. infra, in Song 4:14. 15 The reader should also be aware of the complexity of the situation surrounding the present contribution: the study deals with terminology in Hebrew and Greek, it was written in Dutch and it was translated into English. Even the translation from Dutch to English can give rise on occasion to similar difficulties.


33

Our study begins with a first paragraph on the rendering of flowers in the lxx. The second paragraph will deal in turn with trees and fruits. The third paragraph discusses the translation of herbs and spices. The study concludes with a summary and interpretation of the results arising from the three separate paragraphs, with a view to an adequate characterisation of the translation technique of Song of Songs on the basis of the studied very specific criterion, and the confrontation thereof with the results of the study of the rendering of hapax legomena in lxx Song of Songs referred to above. The Greek Translation of Hebrew Proper Names for Flowers in Song of Songs Verse16

nrsv

mt

lxx

2:1

Rose of Sharon

ˆwrçh tlxbj

ἄνθος τοῦ πεδίου

tlxbj is only found in two places in the Hebrew bible, once here in Song 2:1, where it is rendered in the Septuagint by the general term ἄνθος and once in Isa 35:1, where it is translated by the Greek word κρίνον.17 A footnote in the nrsv identifies this ‘rose’ with “the crocus that grows in the coastal plain of Sharon” and mentions, without further explanation, that the Hebrew probably intended ‘crocus.’ Moreover, nrsv likewise translates tlxbj by ‘crocus’ in Isa 35:1. This meaning, however, is very doubtful. According to Koehler-Baumgartner, tlxbj is closer in meaning to ‘asphodel’ (‘asphodelus’), which refers to a sort of lily.18 This interpretation is reflected in the rendering of the term by the semantically related κρίνον in Isa 35:1. The attestation of the term in Song 2:1 opts for a more general translation by employing the generic ‘flower’ or ἄνθος. Given the fact that tlxbj only occurs on one occasion in Song of Songs, it is possible 16 The textual versions used are the New Revised Standard Version for the English text (nrsv, 1989), the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (bhs, 1983) for the Massoretic Text (mt) and the Septuagint edition of Rahlfs (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1979) for the Septuagint text (lxx). 17 Cf. in this respect, also Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7c; New York: Doubleday, 1977), 367. 18 References to Koehler-Baumgartner in the present contribution are to: Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Unveranderter Nachdruck der Dritten Aufage [1967–1995]; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004); henceforth KBL.

34


that the translator did not know the meaning of the word in question and thus chose a broader term in an effort to do justice to the context. If one attempts to characterise such a procedure in terms of translation technique, it would be difficult to describe the translation as literalistic. It would have been possible for him simply to transcribe the word. He thus exhibits a degree of freedom in searching for a creative solution, although he remains faithful to his Vorlage by opting for the generic ἄνθος and establishing a careful link with the context. Notice moreover, that lxx did a similar thing by rendering ˆwrç: not by a proper name, but by its generic meaning ‘plain’ in ἄνθος τοῦ πεδίου.19 Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

2:1 2:2 2:16 4:5 5:13 6:2 6:3 7:3

Lily of the Valley Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily

μyqm[h tnçwç hnçwç hnçwç hnçwç hnçwç hnçwç hnçwç hnçwç

κρίνον τῶν κοιλάδων κρίνον κρίνον κρίνον κρίνον κρίνον κρίνον κρίνον

The most frequently mentioned flower in Song of Songs is the hnçwç, which is rendered consistently in the lxx by one and the same Greek equivalent, κρίνον. According to KBL, hnçwç refers to the so-called ‘Lilium candidum’ or the ‘white lily.’ The term κρίνον is also identified by LEH with ‘lily’ and according to LSJ more specifically with the ‘Lilium candidum.’20 In seven of the eight occurrences listed above, the form is used independently as a reference to the said white lily.21 In the Hebrew of Song 2:1, however, we find a status constructus, μyqm[h tnçwç, in which the ‘lily’ is further determined by μyqm[h. According to KBL, the latter substantive (qm[) refers to a dale or a valley, giving rise in Song 2:1 to the combination ‘lily of the valleys’ or in more contemporary usage ‘Lily of the Valley.’ Also by using the epexegetical genitive τῶν κοιλάδων, which LSJ understands as ‘hollow’ and LEH consistently as See equally Pope, Song of Songs, 367. LEH is employed as an abbreviation of Johan Lust et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003). LSJ refers to Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.; Revised and Augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). 21 See however Pope, Song of Songs, 368–70, who refers to the ‘lotus,’ ‘water lily’ or ‘Nymphae lotus.’ 19 20


35

‘deep valley,’ the Greek translation makes literally referance to a ‘lily of the valley’. The Greek translator would appear to have adequately understood the Hebrew singular hnçwç and the compound construction μyqm[h tnçwç, thereby offering both a literal and faithful rendering of his Vorlage. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

2 :12

Flowers

μynxnh

τὰ ἄνθη

The Hebrew plural μynxnh, rendered in the nrsv as ‘the flowers,’ is derived in KBL from the singular ≈n or hxn ‘Blütenstand,’ which only occurs on four occasions in the OT (Gen 40:10; Isa 18:5; Job 15:33 and Song 2:12). The substantive in question is said to be related to the verb ≈xn ‘blühen.’ The Greek equivalent τὰ ἄνθη is fairly literal, in one sense, since it provides exact correspondence in terms of quantitative representation by using a definite article and a noun in the plural. At the same time, however, the lxx translator also exhibits a degree of ‘freedom’ with respect to the Hebrew text by using an idiomatic Greek word that renders the same semantic content, τὰ ἄνθη, while employing, however, a regular and independent substantive rather than a derivative of the verb. The Greek Translation of Hebrew Terms for Trees and Fruit in Song of Songs Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:17 5:15 8:9

Cedar Cedars Cedar

μyzra μyzra zra

κέδροι κέδροι κεδρίνην

According to KBL, the Hebrew term zra refers to a type of wood, traditionally translated as ‘Zeder’ (‘Cedrus Libani Barrel ’), and mostly understood to come from Lebanon. It is also related to the ‘Abies Cilicia,’ a long-stemmed conifer. The term occurs with considerable frequency in the OT in reference to noble material. The equivalent Greek substantive is κέδρος (also κέδρον) and the derived adjective κέδρινος are also frequent and, for LEH and LSJ, reflect the same semantic content.22

22 See also, George B. Caird, “Homoeophony in the Septuagint,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (eds. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin

36


The lxx translator demonstrates his familiarity at this juncture with the Hebrew term and translates it consistently and adequately with the same Greek equivalent. No particular qualities with respect to his translation technique can be determined on this basis, beyond the fact that he was clearly faithful to his Vorlage and, given his consistency, literal at the same time. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:17

Pine

μytwrb

κυπάρισσοι

As we discussed earlier, the Hebrew term μytwrb is a hapax legomenon.23 Greenspahn’s categorisation as an absolute hapax, however, is open to dispute.24 Taken in context, the term seems to be related to the noun çrb, which means ‘cypress’ and occurs repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. If the Vorlage read trb, which is often considered an Aramaism,25 the lxx translator, rendering κυπάρισσος, assumes the freedom to relate this term to the Hebrew çrb, entirely in accordance with the context. A literalist or slavish translator would undoubtedly have transliterated here. It is possible that the translator allowed his interpretation of the Vorlage to be influenced by 1 Kgs 5,24, where zra and çrb are also found together. Verse26

nrsv

mt

lxx

2:3 2:5 4:3 6:7 7:8/9/9 8:5

Apple tree With apples Your cheeks Your cheeks Like apples Apple tree

jwpt μyjwptb ˚tqr ˚tqr μyjwptk jwpt

μῆλον ἐν μήλοις μῆλόν σου μῆλόν σου ὡς μῆλα ὑπὸ μῆλον

Scroggs; Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 21; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 74–88, especially 78. 23 See Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 47–48. 24 Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of the Phenomenon and its Treatment Since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms (SBLDS 74; Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1984), 17–29. 25 According to Pope (Song of Songs, 362) the exchange of ç for t is characteristic of Aramaic or Northern dialects. See also Murphy, The Song of Songs, 132. 26 Where reference is made to more than one verse for a single reading, this is due to distinction in verse enumeration between the translation of nrsv and the text versions of bhs (mt) and Rahfs (lxx) respectively.


37

According to KBL, the Hebrew word jwpt means ‘the tree’ as well as ‘the fruit’: apple tree and apple. This Hebrew lexeme has been translated very consistently by one and the same Greek word, μῆλον, which correspondingly means both the apple tree and the apple itself according to LEH, although LSJ merely refers to ‘apple.’ lxx Song of Songs, however, seems to use it in both meanings, thus staying close to its Vorlage in a rather literal way. An additional observation needs to be made, however, with respect to verses 4:3 and 6:7.27 On two occasions, the lexeme μῆλον would appear to function as the equivalent of the Hebrew hqr, which KBL derives from ‘das Dunne’ and associates with the ‘temples’ (‘Schläfe’). The nrsv translates with ‘cheeks.’ LEH likewise ascribes a second meaning to μῆλον in addition to apple/apple tree, namely ‘cheeks’ although it associates the latter exclusively with Song 4:3 and 6:6. Hatch and Redpath also refer exclusively to the said verses in Song of Songs with respect to this usage.28 This meaning is thus explicitly linked to Song of Songs. Nevertheless, in addition to the literal meaning of μῆλον, ‘apple,’ LSJ refers to the metaphorical use—albeit in the plural—of μῆλα for the breasts and cheeks of a young woman. It is probably this usage that the lxx translator of Song of Songs had in mind when he opted for the word μῆλον in Song 4:3 and 6:6 as equivalent for the Hebrew hqr. If this is correct, one can argue that he endeavoured to translate into idiomatic Greek by employing a Greek expression that fitted the context in Song of Songs, where the apple tree on its own is already charged with significance. The image is further reinforced by the association of the cheeks of the young woman, referred to metaphorically

27 With regard to the interpretation of these verses, and in particular the concluding formula ἐκτὸς τῆς σιωπήσεώς σου, see also a contribution written by our research assistants: Reinhart Ceulemans and Dries De Crom, “Greek Renderings of the Hebrew Lexeme hmx in Canticles and Isaiah,” VT 57 (2007): 511–23. Up to three times, the lxx version of Song of Songs (4:1,3; 6:7) reads σιώπησις (‘silence’) as a translation equivalent of the Hebrew lexeme hmx (‘veil’). The article of Ceulemans and De Crom aims at establishing whether this enigmatic equivalence is due to mistranslation or to a conscious, if obscure, rendering, by closely analysing the nature of the lexemes in question. Although there are strong arguments in favour of the former scenario, the matter cannot be resolved with any definiteness. Symmachus’ apparently similar translation of Isa 47:2 (to σιώπησις for hmx) is shown to be unrelated to the puzzling equivalence established in lxx Song of Songs. The article concludes with some thoughts on the lexicographical treatment of translation-specific lexical items such as σιώπησις. 28 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 21998), 921.

38


as ‘apples,’ with the pomegranate. The Hebrew Vorlage, on the other hand, offers a neutral term, which refers—strictly speaking—to ‘temples’ rather than ‘cheeks.’ Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

4:3 4:13 6:7 6:11 7:12/13/13 8:2

Pomegranate Pomegranates Pomegranate Pomegranates Pomegranates My pomegranates

ˆwmr μynwmr ˆwmr μynwmrh μynwmrh ynmr

ῥόας ῥοῶν ῥόας αἱ ῥόαι αἱ ῥόαι ῥοῶν μου

In parallel with the use of jwpt as ‘apple’ and ‘apple tree,’ KBL maintains that the Hebrew term ˆwmr likewise refers to both the fruit of the pomegranate tree and the tree itself, the so-called ‘Punica Granatum L.’ According to LEH and LSJ, the Greek term ἡ ῥόα refers analogously to the same pomegranate and the tree on which it grows.29 The lxx translation of Song of Songs would thus appear to be faithful to the Vorlage and, at the same, literal by consistently employing a word that exhibits almost perfect congruence in semantic terms. The term ˆwmr, moreover, is also rendered as ῥόα in other biblical attestations.30 This fact might also suggest that the term was particularly well known, thus advising caution in our endeavour to draw specific conclusions with respect to the characterisation of the translation technique of the translator of Song of Songs. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

7:13/14/14

The mandrakes

μyadwdh

οἱ μανδραγόραι

The Hebrew term μyadwdh has been rendered in Song 7:13 by the Greek οἱ μανδραγόραι (from μανδραγόρας). The nrsv translates it as ‘mandrake.’ Both terms seem to correspond in meaning to refer to the ‘Mandragora officinalis’ or the ‘Atropa Mandragor.’ The lexica offer the

29 See also in this regard, George B. Caird, “Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint II,” in Septuagintal Lexicography (ed. Robert A. Kraft; SBLSCS 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972), 133–52, especially 144–45; repr. from JTS 20 (1969). See also John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1990), 460. 30 By way of example, see Joel 1:12; Ezek 19:10.


39

translation ‘mandragora’ or ‘mandrake’ for both the Hebrew and the Greek terms and refer to an aphrodisiac.31 With specific reference to translation technique, however, there is little to be concluded within the immediate context of Song of Songs, since 7:13 is the only occurrence. Outside Song of Songs, however, the term occurs only in Gen 30:14(2x),15(2x),16, and in all these instances, μανδραγόρας is the rendering of μyadwdh. Nevertheless, the Greek term μανδραγόρας is also used in combination with the term μῆλον so that it forms the double formula μῆλα μανδραγορῶν in Gen. 30:14, thus pointing to the ‘apples of the mandrake’ or the ‘fruits of the mandrake.’ Based on these observations, therefore, it seems that the lxx translator thought he knew the exact meaning of this specific Hebrew word and thus rendered his Vorlage both faithfully and literally. Verse nrsv

mt

lxx

2:13

hygp hfnj hnath

ἡ συκῆ ἐξήνεγκεν ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς

The fig tree puts forth its figs

As we have demonstrated elsewhere based on a variety of arguments,32 it seems apparent that the lxx translator of Song 2:13 was anything but literalist. The term hnath has been rendered by ἡ συκῆ. According to KBL, the Hebrew hnat can mean both ‘fig tree’ (‘Ficus Carica L.’) or its fruit ‘fig.’ Its Greek equivalent συκῆ, referring to the ‘fig tree’ according to LEH, is a perfect rendering of this meaning. The translation equivalent that renders the verb fnj in Song 2:13, however, is more remarkable. This verb has also been used in Gen 50:2,26, where the context clearly indicates that it concerns the embalming (of a corpse). The lxx very effectively renders the term in Gen 50 with ἐνταφιάζω (embalming; 50:2) or θάπτω (to bury; 50:26). It goes without saying that such an interpretation of the concept in the context of Song 2:13 would have little meaning. In Song 2:13, the verb fnj is usually translated as ‘bring/put forth’ or ‘ripen.’ As such, the choice of ἐκφέρω in lxx ‘freely’ reflects the intention of the text. It is striking, moreover, that lxx situates the colon in the past through the use of an aorist. As such, this option corresponds to the choice of ὄλυνθος as the translation equivalent for the hapax legomenon hgp, which could mean ‘fig.’ Remarkably, the equivalent of lxx, ὄλυνθος, is also a 31 32

See in this respect equally Pope, Song of Songs, 648–49. See Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 50–51.

40


hapax.33 This word, which also appears in the New Testament in Rev 6:13, can be described as a ‘winter fig.’34 In any case, it is clear that the lxx translator interpreted it as a sign of the end of winter and the beginning of spring. Spring is in the air and one of its signs is that the fig tree has sprouted (cf. aorist) its ‘winter figs.’ In addition, the fact that the translator opted for a Greek hapax, and thereby for an uncommon word, seems to confirm his intention to render the Hebrew hapax in a special way. In parallel to συκῆ, he could also have rendered it by σῦκον, which is a more common word meaning ‘fig.’ The situation in Song 2:13 seems to have been complicated. Both hgp and ὄλυνθος are hapax legomena. The verb fnj has been interpreted freely according to the meaning of the context. Both ‘solutions’ point in the direction of a translator who handled his Vorlage rather freely. Nevertheless, the Greek verse fits its context in an excellent way and renders all five constituents of the Hebrew clause in exact quantitative representation/segmentation. In our view, therefore, it would be appropriate to characterise this translator as ‘free’ but ‘faithful.’ Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:6 1:6 1:14 2:15 2:15 7:12/13/13 8:11 8:11 8:12

Of the vineyards My own vineyard In the vineyards The vineyards Our vineyards To the vineyards A vineyard The vineyard My vineyard, my very own

μymrkh ymrk ymrkb μymrk wnymrkw μymrkl μrk μrkh

ἐν ἀμπελῶσιν ἀμπελῶνα ἐμόν ἐν ἀμπελῶσιν ἀμπελῶνας αἱ ἄμπελοι ἡμῶν εἰς ἀμπελῶνας ἀμπελών τὸν ἀμπελῶνα

ylç ymrk

ἀμπελών μου ἐμός

The The The The

μynpgh ˆpgh ˆpgh ˆpgh

αἱ ἄμπελοι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἄμπελος

2:13 6:11 7:8/9/9 7:12/13/13

vines vines vine vines

33 Cf. also in this regard, Takamitsu Muraoka, “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicography,” in Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Leuven 1989 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 31; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 205–22. 34 Cf. Walter Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 1119: “Spätfeige” or “Herbst- und Winterfeige.”


41

Both the Hebrew word μrkh and the Greek word ὁ ἀμπελών refer to the vineyard. At the same time, both ˆpgh and ἡ ἄμπελος refer to the grapevine, the so-called Vitis Vinifera. If the instances of the use of both ‘vineyard’ and ‘vine’ are studied in the Septuagint, it is remarkable that μrkh (vineyard) is rendered by ὁ ἀμπελών in the large majority of cases.35 If the equivalents of ˆpgh are studied, the common Greek rendering is ἡ ἄμπελος.36 In Song of Songs, this lexical situation seems to be confirmed. The lxx translator of Song of Songs consistently translates ˆpg as ἄμπελος; μrk is rendered as ἀμπελών. When it comes to the translation of μrk, however, there is one exception, namely Song 2:15. In this verse, μrk is translated by ἄμπελος. In LEH, the verse in question serves as an example of a second meaning for μrk. Nevertheless, it is equally possible in the concrete context of Song of Songs that the translator made reference at this juncture to the vine rather than the vineyard. Bearing in mind that he would appear to have been able to make the distinction with clarity in every other case, rendering it with terminological consistency, the suggestion of ‘confusion’ of terms seems unlikely. For this reason, we prefer the suggestion that the translator consciously used ἄμπελος in 2:15 to refer to the vine and not the vineyard. In terms of content, the verse is a warning: “catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that ruin the vineyards (μymrk/ἀμπελῶνας), for our vineyards/vines (wnymrk/αἱ ἄμπελοι ἡμῶν) are in blossom.” Strictly speaking, it is not the ‘vineyards’ that are in blossom, but rather the ‘vines.’ It is possible that the lxx translator of Song of Songs may have introduced this emendation, either consciously or unconsciously. What conclusion can we draw on the basis of the aforementioned observations? On the one hand, one is aware that the translator follows his Vorlage very closely and translates both terms respectively with consistency. In addition, the other elements from the immediate context, such as the prepositions and/or possessive pronouns/suffixes, are translated literally. Reference can be made in this regard to Song 8:12 with its remarkable double emphatic emphasis ylç ymrk, which is also translated word for word with a double emphatic in Greek as ἀμπελών μου ἐμός. The quantitative representation of each element in the Hebrew text is thus respected. In line with his Vorlage, the Greek

35 36

See Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance, 67. See Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance, 66–67.

42


translator does not employ the definite article and he also translates the possessive suffix of the first person by μου and the emphasised ylç by way of the possessive pronoun ἐμός. A definite article would have been expected in idiomatic Greek, and the preposition ἐμός or the even more emphatic genitive of the reflexive pronoun ἐμαυτῆς, would have been placed before the substantive, thereby creating significant emphasis as such. Fluent Greek would thus have read ὁ ἐμὸς ἀμπελών or ὁ ἐμαυτῆς ἀμπελών. On the other hand, it would be inaccurate to describe such extreme literality as the translator’s primary modus operandi. In our discussion of Song 2:15, for example, wnymrk—with a suffix and without a definite article—is translated into Greek as αἱ ἄμπελοι ἡμῶν—with a definite article and a possessive pronoun, in line with customary Greek possessive emphasis.37 The change in content in 2:15 from ‘vineyard’ to ‘vine,’ also serves to exemplify the translator’s desire to provide first and above all a meaningful rendering of his Vorlage. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

6:11

To the nut orchard

zwga tngAla

εἰς κῆπον καρύας

As we have discussed elsewhere,38 the noun hng in Song 6,11 is connected to the hapax legomenon zwga. The etymology of the latter term is disputed. The term is frequently related to the (wal)nut, which had sexual connotations in the Ancient Near East.39 In any case, the Greek translation equivalent (καρύα—nut/nut tree), also a hapax legomenon in the corpus of the Septuagint, renders it entirely along such lines. Verse

nrsv

7:7/8/8 As a palm tree 7:8/9/9 the palm tree

mt

lxx

rmtl rmtb

τῷ φοίνικι ἐπὶ τῷ φοίνικι

According to KBL, the Hebrew term rmt means ‘Dattelpalme.’ LSJ similarly renders the Greek equivalent, φοῖνιξ, as ‘date-palm,’ referring to the same reality. Both lexica identify the said ‘date-palm’ with the so-called ‘Phoenix dactylifera.’ In the Septuagint, rmt, at least as far as

37 The use of Greek possessive pronouns to represent Hebrew possessive suffixes has also been studied by the Finnish school as a criterion in the characterisation of translation technique. Cf. in this regard, Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens,” 86–103. A systematic study of this phenomenon in Song of Songs is planned to be the subject of a future contribution. 38 See Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 56. 39 See Pope, Song of Songs, 574–79.


43

Hatch and Redpath are concerned, is always translated by the same Greek equivalent, namely φοῖνιξ. Song of Songs does not constitute an exception in this regard. The Greek translator would appear to have been familiar with the Hebrew term and used the customary Greek equivalent. The Greek Translation of Herbs and Spices in Song of Songs When we study the herbs referred to in Song of Songs, a number of different species are mentioned. It seems remarkable that some of these seem to have been transliterated or at least made to resemble the Hebrew terms to a significant degree, while real Greek equivalents have been sought for the others, corresponding semantically—and in some instances even phonetically—to their Hebrew original. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:14 4:13

Henna Henna

rpk rpk

κύπρος κύπρος

According to Hatch and Redpath, the Greek word κύπρος only occurs twice in the Septuagint, namely in the verses of Song of Songs referred to here, and in both instances as the equivalent of the Hebrew word rpk. The lexica suggest that both terms—and the Greek not limited to the lxx—stand for camphor or henna, the so-called ‘Lawsonia inermis.’40 It is clear that both terms are particularly alike. Nevertheless, it is more difficult to determine whether the Greek is a transliteration of a Semitic loan word (see LEH),41 or whether both terms are based on a reference to ‘Cyprus.’ According to KBL, the consonants rpk are to be recognised in the Ugaritic and Syriac equivalents—and evidently in the English ‘camphor’—and refer to the ‘Cyperblume,’ flowers of Cyprus. The place name Cyprus is also written in precisely the same manner in Greek as the name for Henna: (Κ)κύπρος. Thus, in this regard, no general conclusions can be drawn with respect to the lxx translator of Song of Songs.42 See also Pope, Song of Songs, 352–53. Cf. also in this respect, Caird, “Homoeophony,” 79; Emanuel Tov, “Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint,” Bib 60 (1979): 216–36, especially 222; Zohary. Plants of the Bible, 190. 42 Note also that the phonetically related terms κυπρισμός (bloom, Song 7:13) and κυπρίζω (to bloom, Song 2:13,15) also occur exclusively in Song of Songs (see LEH and LSJ). 40 41

44

bénédicte lemmelijn Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:12 4:13 4:14

Nard Nard Nard

drn drn drn

νάρδος νάρδος νάρδος

According to Hatch and Redpath, the Greek term νάρδος exhibits a similar situation to that noted above in relation to rpk and κύπρος, and occurs only three times in the Septuagint, namely in the texts from Song of Songs noted here, and in each instance as the equivalent of the same Hebrew term drn. KBL and LSJ associate the terms with ‘narde’ or ‘nard, spikenard’ respectively, the so-called ‘Nardostachys Jatamansi.’43 In discussing this word, LEH explains it as a ‘Semitic loanword,’ which has survived in modern translations, and this characterisation is probably correct in this instance.44 The lxx translator transcribed this very specific term and, as such, he followed his Vorlage quite literally. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

1:13 3:6 4:6

Myrrh Myrrh Mountain of myrrh Myrrh Myrrh Myrrh

rm rwrx rwm rwmh rh

ἀπόδεσμος τῆς στακτῆς σμύρνα τὸ ὄρος τῆς σμύρνης

rm rwm rm

σμύρνα σμύρνα σμύρνα

4:14 5:1 5:13

According to Hatch and Redpath, the Greek term σμύρνα is always employed as the equivalent of the Hebrew term rm or rwm in scriptio plena. The lexica KBL, LEH and LSJ maintain that both words encompass one another consistently in semantic terms and refer to the ‘Commiphora abessinica,’ the resin of the so-called ‘Balsomodendron myrrha.’ LSJ argues that the term σμύρνα is derived from an original μύρρα, which in turn is said to be a transcription of a Semitic original.45 If this word has become the Greek term form myrrh—note also evident similarities with lexemes from modern languages—it would have been normal for the lxx translator to have adopted the term in question as the equivalent of the Hebrew rm, seeing the possibility of rendering

See also Pope, Song of Songs, 348–49. Cf. also Caird, “Homoeophony,” 78–79; Tov, “Loan-Words,” 221. 45 See also in this regard Caird, “Homoeophony,” 78; Alain Le Boulluec and Pierre Sandevoir, L’Exode (vol. 2 of La Bible d’Alexandrie; Paris: Cerf, 1989), 311. 43 44


45

his Vorlage both faithfully and literally while maintaining a degree of semantic and even phonetic similarity. Nevertheless, such a conclusion requires further elaboration. It is true that occurrences of the Greek word σμύρνα are consistently equivalent to rm or rwm. The Hebrew term rm or rwm, however, is also rendered by other Greek equivalents: κρόκος, κρόκινος and στακτή. The Greek στακτή only occurs in Song 1:13 as the equivalent of rm; elsewhere it is employed as the equivalent of twlha, fl, πfn and ˚pn. The terms κρόκος and κρόκινος occur on one single occasion as the equivalent of rm in Prov 7:17 and once as the equivalent of μkrk in Song 4:14 (see infra). In the formulation of Song 1:13, ἀπόδεσμος τῆς στακτῆς, which functions in parallel with βότρυς τῆς κύπρου in Song 1:14, the lxx translator would appear to have demonstrated his creativity. In the first instance, ἀπόδεσμος is a hapax legomenon, although not in the ‘absolute’ sense,46 given its evident associations with a similar hapax ἀποδεσμεύω in Prov 26:8. According to LSJ and LEH, these terms mean ‘to bind’ in their verbal form and ‘bundle’ or ‘sack’ in their substantive form. Both words may be derived from the more frequent ἀποδέω, which LSJ likewise determines as ‘bind fast’ or ‘tie up.’ The verb in Prov 26:8 serves to translate the Hebrew rrx and, by analogy, the substantive in Song 1:13 serves to translate the nominalised rwrx. When it comes to the translation of this term, the lxx would appear to have been literal. However, the nomen rectum of the Hebrew status constructus, rmh rwrx, is not translated by σμύρνα as it is elsewhere in Song of Songs, but by στακτή (aromatic oil). It would seem that the translator offered a rendering ad sensum here and thus was more concerned with the meaning in this instance than with the provision of a literal translation. Based on these observations, we can conclude that we should not be too quick to characterise the Greek translation of rm or rwm as an indication of a ‘literalistic’ translation. On the one hand, the Greek term σμύρνα as derived from the Semitic word is a natural choice, especially since it provides both semantic and phonetic equivalence. On the other hand, the translator’s formulation of ἀπόδεσμος τῆς στακτῆς in Song 1:13 exhibits extraordinary creativity, not only in its ‘invention’ of a hapax, but particularly in its ad sensum translation, in which the meaningfulness of the text—i.e. the ‘faithfulness’ of the translation—is

46 With respect to the difference between ‘absolute’ and ‘non-absolute’ hapax legomena, see also Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 44.

46


preferred over the ‘literality’ sustained in the stereotype and consistent use of σμύρνα. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

4:14

Saffron

μkrk

κρόκος

The Hebrew text of Song 4:14 uses an ‘absolute’ hapax legomenon, μkrk, rendered in Greek by κρόκος. According to Pope, the hapax legomenon μkrk is derived from Sanskrit, and the term is related to the Greek noun κρόκος.47 According to LEH, this Greek term is said to be a loanword from Semitic which, besides being found in Song 4,14, also appears in Prov 7,17.48 As Ausloos and I have argued elsewhere,49 this position seems unlikely, in view of the fact that the term κρόκος is already attested in Homeric Greek. Even if Semitic influence based on travelling throughout the Ancient Near East were to substantiate, albeit in theory, the possibility of such a loanword, the successive enunciation of the consonants k and r is hardly a Semitic characteristic. Bearing this in mind, it is probable that the translator did not know the precise meaning of μkrk and that he was forced to search for an adequate alternative. In doing so, it is possible that he read a s instead of a μ-finalis. By choosing the Greek κρόκος, therefore, he not only rendered a transliteration of the Hebrew, at least as far as the consonants are concerned.50 Moreover, he also used a familiar Greek term, thus, trying to give sense to his translation while being as ‘faithful’ as possible to his Vorlage. Verse

nrsv

4:14

Cinnamon

mt lxx

ˆwmnq

κιννάμωμον

As with μkrk, rendered in Greek by κρόκος, the lxx translator seems to do something similar with the terms ˆwmnk and κιννάμωμον.51 In this case, the terms—both referring to the so-called ‘Cinnamomum Cassia’ and thus being each other’s semantic equivalent—are also phonetically related. The Greek equivalent, however, is a fully-fledged Greek word,

47 48 49 50 51

Cf. Pope, Song of Songs, 493. In Prov 7,17 κρόκος is the equivalent of the Hebrew term rm, cf. supra. Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 54. Cf. Tov, “Loan-Words,” 221. See also Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love,” 54–55.


47

as is evident from Herodotus’ use.52 Moreover, it is remarkable in this regard, that it is not an exact transliteration, since the final ˆ is a μ in Greek. If the translator had aimed at a mere transcription, he could easily have written κίνναμον, which, according to LSJ, has become a later form of κιννάμωμον. Instead of evolving into more Greek, the Greek term seems to have been ‘Hebraicised’ to an even greater extent. Although it cannot be ascertained with certainty whether the Greek term has possible Semitic roots,53 it can be concluded that the Septuagint translator used a common Greek word here and that he did not simply transcribe the Hebrew. It appears that the translator only resorts to transliterating the Hebrew when he can find no adequate Greek equivalent, as can be seen from his choice of the term νάρδος at the beginning of Song 4:14 (cf. supra).54 Thus, in the rendering of ˆwmnq by κιννάμωμον, the translator offers both a literal and an idiomatic Greek equivalent. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

4:14

Calamus

hnq

κάλαμος

According to KBL, the Hebrew term hnq stands for ‘Gewürzrohr’ or ‘wohlriechendes Kalmus.’ Following LSJ, the Greek term κάλαμος alludes to ‘reed’ in general, to various types thereof and in particular to the ‘Acorus Calamus.’ Both terms would thus appear to be semantic equivalents, allowing us to argue that in spite of its single occurrence in Song of Songs, the lxx translator understood his Hebrew Vorlage in this instance and was able to render it with an adequate Greek equivalent. When we look at the Septuagint as a whole, it appears that hnq is almost always rendered with the equivalent κάλαμος. According to Hatch and Redpath, the Greek term κάλαμος is nevertheless also used as the equivalent of f[ (writing implement made from a reed or a stick) in Ps 44(45):1 and of ˆygh (conversation, letter, sentence) in Ezek 42:12. In these instances, there is likewise an association with the 52 In this regard, one can of course raise the question as to the extent to which Herodotus’ use of κιννάμωμον has possibly been influenced by his own knowledge of the then known world as a consequence of his many travels. 53 As in Wevers, Notes, 499: “κιννάμωμον (. . .) is a Semitic borrowing into Greek.” See also LSJ, 953: “κιννάμωμον = Hebr. Cinnamon.” 54 Νάρδος exclusively appears in Song of Songs (1:12; 4:13,14), each time as an equivalent of drn. In addition to Song of Songs 4,14, the noun κιννάμωμον is also the equivalent of ˆmnq and ˆwmnq in Exod 30:23 and Prov 7:17 respectively. The Greek term also occurs in Sir 24:15.

48


primary meaning of reed. On the other hand, the Hebrew term hnq is rendered in its various nuances of meaning by a variety of Greek words, among them on one occasion by the term κιννάμωμον discussed above as the equivalent of the formula bwfh hnq found in Jer 6:20. In function of the characterisation of the lxx translator of Song of Songs, however, all we can conclude here is that he remained ‘faithful’ to his Vorlage and translated literally. Verse

nrsv

mt

lxx

4:14

Aloes

twlha

ἀλωθ

The Hebrew term twlha is found on two occasions in the bible, once here in Song 4:14, rendered in Greek by ἀλωθ, and once in Ps 44(45):8 where it is translated by στακτή. The latter term means ‘aromatic oil,’ as we already mentioned above in the context of the rendering of rm, which has also been translated once by στακτή. According to KBL, the Hebrew twlha points to the so-called ‘Aloexyllon Agallochum’ and/ or ‘Aquilaria Agallocha.’ In the lxx, the term ἀλωθ is a hapax legomenon. Apparently, it is a genuine transliteration of the Hebrew twlha. It is possible that the translator simply did not understand this Hebrew term. If he had understood it, he would have probably used the existing and adequate Greek word ἀλόη (‘Aloe Vera’) or ἀγάλλοχον, a word being recognised in the above mentioned Latin names of the plant. Based on this observation, it can be suggested that the lxx translator, unfamiliar with the meaning of the Hebrew twlha (since it occurred on only two occasions in the entire bible), opted for a transliteration in order to be sure to render his Vorlage in a ‘faithful’ way, and necessarily in this case also ‘literally.’ Verse

nrsv

mt

3:6 3:9 4:6

Frankincense Wood of Lebanon Hill of frankincense

hnwbl λίβανος ˆwnblh ≈[ ξύλων τοῦ Λιβάνου hnwblh t[bg τὸν βουνὸν τοῦ

4:8 4:11

From Lebanon (2X) Like the scent of Lebanon 4:14 Trees of frankincense 4:15 From Lebanon 5:15 Like Lebanon 7:4/5/5 Like a tower of Lebanon

lxx

ˆwnblm ˆwnbl jyrk

Λιβάνου ἀπὸ Λιβάνου ὡς ὀσμὴ Λιβάνου

hnwbl yx[ ˆwnblAˆm ˆwnblk ˆwnblh ldgmk

ξύλων τοῦ Λιβάνου ἀπὸ τοῦ Λιβάνου ὡς Λίβανος ὡς πύργος τοῦ Λιβάνου


49

The Hebrew term hnwbl means ‘frankincense’ and refers, according to KBL, to the white resin of the ‘Boswellia Carterii & Frereana.’ In Song of Songs, it is very consistently translated by the Greek word λίβανος. In other instances, λίβανος is also used as the Greek equivalent of hnwbl (also written hnbl) in the great majority of the cases. Apart from λίβανος, however, the word hnwbl is also translated on two occasions by λιβανωτός in 1 Chr 9:29 and 3 Macc 5:2. According to LSJ, λίβανος likewise refers to the ‘Boswellia Carterii’ and thus covers precisely the same semantic meaning as the Hebrew word.55 In LEH, the word is described as a “Semitic loanword.” It is evident that the consonants in both the Hebrew and the Greek word effectively resemble one another to a significant degree and it does indeed seem possible that the Semitic term has influenced the formation of the Greek. This need not imply, however, that the use of λίβανος in Song of Songs should be understood as a mere transliteration. Given its use in the writings of Herodotus, for example, the term in question is clearly in use as a fully-fledged idiomatic Greek word. The Hebrew term ˆwnbl refers to the geographic name Lebanon. However, the Septuagint translator seems to have used the same term to render both Hebrew ˆwnbl (Lebanon) and hnwbl (frankincense). This means that, if the Greek does not distinguish the terms by writing them with capitals (as is done in Rahlfs), there is no difference to be observed.56 Thus, the meaning of the Greek has to be established on the basis of the context, and the latter is not always unambiguous. In this respect, there could be some discussion about 4:6 combined with 4:8. In 4:6, the immediate literary context of a parallelism, in which the first part refers to the ‘mountain of myrrh,’ could give rise to the interpretation a ‘hill of frankincense’ (as in mt). Nevertheless, contextually speaking, the reference to Lebanon seems equally plausible (as in Rahlfs), since v. 8 immediately following makes two clear references to the place Lebanon in “come with me from Lebanon.” Another instance of possible doubt is 4:11. Although the Hebrew reads ˆwnbl and the Greek can indeed be interpreted in that sense (as in Rahlfs), it also makes 55 On λίβανος see also, for example, J. Brown, “The Sacrificial Cult and its Critique in Greek and Hebrew (II),” JSS 25 (1980): 1–21, especially 16–21; Caird, “Homoeophony,” 78; Tov, “Loan-Words,” 221; Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, L’Exode, 313. 56 See in this respect also Jay Curry Treat’s remark in his translation and comment for the New English Translation of the Septuagint (nets), more specifically in the provisional edition of the translation of Song of Songs, 5; entry: http://ccat.sas. upenn.edu/nets/edition/song.pdf, 5–6 (access dd. 28.03.2007).

50


sense to understand it as frankincense, since a ‘scent’ is more related to frankincense than to a place. Equally remarkable is the situation in 4:14 and 4:15. The Hebrew in 4:14 reads hnwbl yx[, referring to the ‘trees/wood of frankincense.’ The Greek, however, can be interpreted in two ways. It could mean frankincense, in parallel with the Hebrew and appropriate to its immediate context of an enumeration of herbs. Nevertheless, the following verse explicitly mentions the stream from Lebanon (as a place) in both texts. Thus, 4:14 could equally be interpreted as ‘the trees of the Lebanon’ (see Rahlfs). Concerning how we are to characterise the translation, the rendering of ˆwnbl (Lebanon) and hnwbl (frankincense) by the same Greek term does not offer us any additional information. However, the translator’s rendering takes particular care for the literary context attested in his Vorlage. We are thus at liberty to characterise him at least as a ‘faithful’ translator. General Conclusion The goal of the present contribution was to study the nature of the lxx translation of Song of Songs from a very particular perspective, namely the examination of the way in which Hebrew names for flora with a specific lexical meaning are rendered in the Greek Song of Songs. Our point of departure was the question whether the translator has succeeded, firstly, in understanding the meaning of the Hebrew words of his Vorlage and secondly, in rendering them adequately in Greek. We tried to determine whether his manner of translating could teach us something about the method underlying his translation, in other words, whether the particular details of the translation can enable us to characterise the translation as ‘literal’ or ‘free’ and/or ‘faithful.’ Based on our discussion of the translation of flowers, trees/fruit and herbs/spices, and in line with the conclusions of our previous study of the way in which lxx Song of Songs deals with Hebrew ‘absolute’ hapax legomena,57 it would be inaccurate to describe this translator as ‘slavish’ as past research has tended to do. The translator of Song of Songs succeeds in providing an adequate Greek equivalent for the majority of Hebrew flora that renders its Vorlage ‘faithfully,’ not only from the semantic and lexical point of view, but sometimes even from the phonetic 57

See introduction, with reference to Ausloos and Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love.”


51

perspective. In several instances, the translator has indeed rendered his basic Hebrew text both ‘faithfully’ and ‘literally.’ Nevertheless, in several other instances he exhibits a considerable degree of ‘freedom.’ Where there is evidence that he did not understand a particular term, as is the case with a number of hapax legomena, he usually searched for a creative solution by using, for example, a more generic equivalent. Only on rare occasions, and where the need was greatest, was he obliged to fall back on transliteration. In many instances, he demonstrates his knowledge of idiomatic Greek, both in the use of vocabulary/grammatical style and in his awareness of the metaphorical connotations characteristic of the Hebrew and Greek usage respectively. As we emphasised in the introduction to the present contribution, it goes without saying that from the methodological perspective, the characterisation of the translator of Song of Songs that can be determined on the basis of our results and conclusions must be confirmed, nuanced and, where necessary, corrected by results and conclusions based on other criteria. However, at least when it comes to the translation of flora, the translator of lxx Song of Songs can be characterised as someone committed first and foremost to rendering his Hebrew Vorlage ‘faithfully,’ with considerable care and with an eye for detail. Taking this primary concern for the meaning rather than the letter of the text as his point of departure, he created an occasionally ‘literal’ but frequently a relatively ‘free’ Greek version of this unique Hebrew poem.

LXX’S RENDERING OF HEBREW PROPER NAMES AND THE CHARACTERISATION OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES Hans Ausloos The question of the so-called translation technique plays a crucial role in the study of the Septuagint. It should come as no surprise then that this issue is the golden thread running through the scholarly career of Professor Raija Sollamo. Using very varied lines of approach, she has striven toward the goal of tracing the characteristics and the method of the Septuagint translators without permitting herself to be tempted by vague generalisations. It is therefore also a great honour to be permitted to dedicate this contribution to one of the most prominent authorities in the study of the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. In order to assess accurately the value of the Septuagint translation and to characterise correctly its translators, a thorough study of the translation technique is indispensable. Insight into the Septuagint is indeed only possible through insight into the so-called translation technique that is constitutive of it. And a precise characterisation of the Septuagint translators and their translation technique must be evaluated using as many criteria as possible.1 Otherwise, one runs the risk of making premature conclusions regarding the value of the Septuagint and its translators. In this way, recent research into the Greek translation equivalents of the hapax legomena in Canticles prompted the questioning of the accepted characterisation of the Septuagint version of Canticles.2 Indeed, even though Canticles (lxx) was—prior to any 1 Cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Participium coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique,” ZAW 32 (1982): 385–393: “To get closer to the truth about them [the different Septuagint translators—H.A.], we need both as many criteria as possible to evaluate them, and a due attention to the influence of the Hebrew text” (393). See also Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translator: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter,” in The Old Greek Psalter (eds. Robert. J. V. Hiebert et al., JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 54–73: “The translators show different capabilities in different areas. For the task of describing one particular translator, this means that we must strive to provide as many-sided a documentation of his working habits and abilities as possible” (55). 2 Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love. Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs,” Translating

54

hans ausloos

accurate analysis of its translation technique—characterised as ‘slavish,’3 B. Lemmelijn and I were able to clearly show that the majority of the Greek equivalents for the fifteen Hebrew hapax legomena in Canticles are rendered by a Greek translator in a manner that is indeed both faithful with regard to the content and meaning of his Hebrew Vorlage, and, at the same time, ‘free.’4 Indeed, the Greek translator of Canticles renders the greater part of the hapax legomena with great respect for his Vorlage. He searches for a legitimate and adequate Greek equivalent that fits into the literary context. Yet, at the same time, he wants to do this in the form of an idiomatic Greek text. Against this background, it is shown that the translator endeavours to remain faithful to the content of the Hebrew text, even in cases where this is extremely difficult: the retrieval of meaning of the hapax legomena is, for a translator, often like a quiz in which the only option is to venture a guess. Nonetheless, the translator of Canticles, even in this extremely complicated situation, seldom opts for the simplest solution, namely the transliteration of the Hebrew word. In general, it may be argued that the translator has striven to find a Greek equivalent that semantically and sometimes even phonetically best approximates the Hebrew Vorlage and its immediate context. He looks for idiomatic Greek constructions, takes stylistic characteristics of the Vorlage into account, strives for variety, plays with assimilation, and desires, above all, an intelligible text rather than a ‘literal’ rendering of enigmatic words. As such, the translator of Canticles proves himself to be competent in search of creative solutions when translating a Hebrew poetic text into a Greek poetic text. This study of the translation equivalents of the hapaxes in Canticles allows, in all that concerns this facet of the translation technique, the characterisation of the translator as ‘faithful’ and ‘free’: he is faithful to the content of his Vorlage, but simultaneously ‘free’ in his Greek rendering thereof. This finding makes it clear that the specific linguistic and content related difficulties that confront not only the contemporary translator of the Hebrew writings, but also mutatis mutandis the ancient Greek translator of the Hebrew texts, can be a good step towards the characterisation a Translation. The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (eds. Hans Ausloos et al., BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008, 43–61). 3 Gillis Gerleman, Ruth—Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 77. 4 For the concepts ‘free,’ ‘literal’ and ‘slavish,’ see Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Litt. 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 280 n. 1.

the book of judges

55

of the translation technique. In addition to the hapax legomena, the way in which proper names function within the biblical text is one of the problems faced. Often, they are not more than names given to peoples or places. But proper names can have a more far-reaching meaning. This is particularly true when they receive a function in aetiological texts, usually short passages that offer, in a narrative way, an (invented) explanation of the name, the origin or existence of places, animals, plants, practices or peoples. All who wish to translate the Hebrew scriptural passage into a modern language are confronted with the problem of such stylistic devices. When one wants to convey the point of such aetiologies, one is usually obliged to do so by means of a commentary, either in the scriptural text itself or in a footnote. In any case, aetiologies are often textual characteristics that enable one to say something about the creativity of the translator. In this contribution, we want to investigate how the Septuagint translators of the A- and B-texts of Judges have dealt with the phenomenon of aetiology5 and whether this analysis suggests the same conclusion as that which Sollamo drew regarding the Greek rendering of semiprepositions, namely that Judges A and Judges B belong, in this respect, to the most slavish translations in the whole of the Septuagint.6 After having given a brief introduction to each of the Hebrew texts, the Greek versions will be examined. Hormah ( Judges 1:17) Judg 1:17 tells of how the tribes of Judah and Simeon march against Zephath, situated in the southern part of Judah. Both tribes kill the autochthonous Canaanites and utterly destroy Zephath. As a result of these events, the city receives a new name: Hormah. In the Hebrew, the connection between the new name of the city (hmrj) and the destructive

5 With regard to the two texts of Judges, see Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2000), 85–105. 6 Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 286–287. Also Seppo Sipilä (Between Literalness and Freedom: Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges Regarding the Clause Connections Introduced by w and yk [Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75; Helsinki/Göttingen: The Finnish Exegetical Society/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 203) arrived at a identical conclusion on the basis of research into the Septuagint rendering of the clause connections w and yk.

56

hans ausloos

actions undertaken by the Israelites, the devotion to destruction (wmyrjyw √μrj), is perfectly clear. mt Judg 1:17

7

wkyw yn[nkh ta bçwy tpx wmyrjyw htwa (wmyrjyw) (htwa) arqyw μç ta ry[h hmrj

lxx(A)

lxx(B)

καὶ ἐπάταξαν τὸν Χαναναῖον τὸν κατοικοῦντα Σεφεθ καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐκάλεσαν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως Ἐξολέθρευσις

καὶ ἔκοψεν τὸν Χαναναῖον τὸν κατοικοῦντα Σεφεκ καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτούς

– – καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως Ἀνάθεμα

In the A-text, it is difficult to determine whether the Hebrew verb μrj finds its translation equivalent in the Greek term ἀναθεματίζω (LEH:8 “to devote”), or in the verb ἐξολεθρεύω (LEH: “to utterly destroy”). Other than in this passage, the Hebrew verb μrj only appears in Judges in Judg 21:11, where both the A- and B-text read ἀναθεματίζω. Except from Judges 1:17 and 21:11, this Greek verb is not used in Judges. Nevertheless, it is still possible that in the A-text ἐξολεθρεύω is the equivalent of μrj, and that καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν αὐτὴν is a plus. Indeed, in Deut 2:34, 3:6, the Hebrew term μrh is translated as ἐξολεθρεύω.9 In Judg 1:19(A), on the other hand, ἐξολεθρεύω is the translation equivalent of the verb çry. The term ἐξολεθρεύω also appears in Judg 2:3(A). Here, however, there is no Hebrew equivalent present in mt. Finally, in Judg 4:24(A and B), 6:26(B), ἐξολεθρεύω is the equivalent of the Hebrew verb trk. The lexemes that the translators have chosen as equivalents for the place name are doubtless inspired by the interpretation given to the Hebrew text. The city is named Hormah because it was devoted to destruction by Judah and Simeon. With regard to the explanation

7 The sign “–” is used to designate a minus in the text. An exclamation mark indicates that the word order in the textual witnesses is different. 8 LEH = Johan Lust et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. (rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003). 9 See Deut 2:34, 3:6. The interpretation of Paul Harlé and Thérèse Roqueplo (Les Juges [vol. 7 of La Bible d’Alexandrie; Paris: Cerf, 1999], 79 [“Pour gloser le premier verbe, AL redouble la traduction avec « et ils la détruisirent »”]) is not undisputed.

the book of judges

57

of the name, the A-text appears to have especially striven toward, and also to have succeeded in, giving a meaningful rendering of the wordplay found in the Vorlage. The place name (Ἐξολέθρευσις) is related to the cognate verb ἐξολεθρεύω, just as it is in the Hebrew. The B-text, by contrast, is itself well aware of the Hebrew wordplay, but fails to adequately reproduce the association between the place name (Ἀνάθεμα) and the verb (ἐξωλέθρευσαν). In Num 21:3, a verse in which the place name Hormah (hmrj) is also related to the cognate Hebrew term μrj, the Septuagint connects the place name (Ἀνάθεμα) to the verb ἀναθεματίζω. Bochim ( Judges 2:5) Judg 2:1–5 tells of the address given by the angel of YHWH at Bochim. Referring to the divine commandment never to enter into a covenant with the indigenous inhabitants of the country, the angel judges Israel’s behaviour extremely negatively: Israel did not keep the divine commandment. For this reason, the angel announces that the inhabitants will not be driven from the Promised Land, but that, on the contrary, they will be a menace to Israel; and that their gods will tempt Israel into idolatry. In reaction to this ominous judgement, the Israelites begin to weep (wkbyw √hkb), and therein lies, according to the aetiology, the origin of the name Bochim (μykb). Judg 2:4 Judg 2:5

mt

lxx(A)

lxx(B)

wkbyw warqyw μç μwqmh awhh μykb

καὶ ἔκλαυσαν διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου Κλαυθμών

καὶ ἔκλαυσαν καὶ ἐπωνόμασαν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου Κλαυθμῶνες

Both the A- and the B-texts have ἔκλαυσαν (κλαίω, LEH: “to cry, to weep, to wail, to lament”) as the correct and appropriate translation equivalent of the Hebrew verb form wkbyw.10 Just as in Judg 1:17, the translators opt for a translation of the Hebrew place name μykb using the equivalent Κλαυθμών/Κλαυθμῶνες (so too in Judg 2:1). Conformity with the verb is thereby achieved. Moreover, Judg 2:5(B) renders the 10 See, moreover, Judg 11:37, 38; 14:16, 17, 20:23, 26, 21:2. Also elsewhere in the Old Testament, κλαίω is the translation equivalent of hkb.

58

hans ausloos

toponym μykb as a plural (Κλαυθμῶνες). In the A-text, the translator goes a step further still by translating the verb arq as ἐκλήθη (καλέω). In itself, there is nothing irregular here, but the assonance with the place name is definitely strengthened. Moreover, the plus διὰ τοῦτο (A) strengthens the link between verses 4 and 5. Peace ( Judges 6:23–24) When the young Gideon of Manasseh is commissioned by the angel of YHWH to free Israel from oppression by the Midianites, he asks for a sign to assure him that he has found favour in God’s eyes. Gideon prepares a meal of meat and unleavened bread. The meal is then consumed by fire. Realising that he has stood face to face with God, he laments. To which YHWH replies, “Peace be to you; do not fear, you shall not die.” Then, Gideon builds an altar for YHWH, that he calls “The Lord (is) peace.” mt Judg 6:23

Judg 6:24

rmayw wl hwhy μwlç ˚l la aryt al twmt ˆbyw μç ˆw[dg jbzm hwhyl arqyw wl hwhy μwlç

lxx(A)

lxx(B)

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ κύριος Εἰρήνη σοι μὴ φοβοῦ μὴ ἀποθάνῃς καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐκεῖ Γεδεων θυσιαστήριον τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Εἰρήνη ! κυρίου !

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ κύριος Εἰρήνη σοι μὴ φοβοῦ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃς καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐκεῖ Γεδεων θυσιαστήριον τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτῷ Εἰρήνη ! κυρίου !

The aetiology of Judg 6:23–24 distinguishes itself from the preceding two cases in that the name of the altar is not immediately marked as a proper name. As a noun clause, the name “YHWH (is) peace” is more of a description than a proper name in the strict sense. The Greek translators choose to render the Hebrew nominal clause as a subject genitive. In this way, they remain faithful to the Vorlage, with-

the book of judges

59

out, however, slavishly following it, which is already apparent from the reversed word order. Indeed, by using a subject genitive—an idiomatic Greek construction—YHWH is the subject in both the Hebrew and the Greek text, yet without having to add a verb form. By opting for this construction, the translators are able to retain the same quantitative elements. Jerubbaal ( Judges 6:32) God orders the same judge Gideon to destroy the altar of Baal erected by his father and to chop down the sacred pole. In place of the destroyed altar, Gideon must erect an altar to YHWH. The wood of the felled pole must be used for the burnt-offering in honour of YHWH. During the night, Gideon carries out his task. When the people discover, the next morning, the altar of Baal destroyed and the sacred pole cut down, and that an offering was made on a newly erected altar, they quickly identify Gideon as the one responsible. They expect Joash, Gideon’s father, to hand him over to be put to death. Joash answers however, “Will you contend11 for Baal? Or will you defend his cause? Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by the morning. If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because his altar has been pulled down” ( Judg 6:31). The narrative continues: “Therefore on that day Gideon was called Jerubbaal, that is to say, ‘Let Baal contend against him,’ because he pulled down his altar.” mt Judg 6:31

μtah ˆwbyrt l[bl μa μta ˆw[yçwt wtwa rça byry wl tmwy

lxx(A) Μὴ ὑμεῖς νῦν δικάζεσθε περὶ τοῦ Βααλ ἢ ὑμεῖς σῴζετε αὐτόν ὃς ἀντεδίκησεν αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖται

lxx(B) Μὴ ὑμεῖς νῦν δικάζεσθε ὑπὲρ τοῦ Βααλ ἢ ὑμεῖς σώσετε αὐτόν ὃς ἐὰν δικάσηται αὐτῷ θανατωθήτω

11 According to Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament [repr., Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004; hence KBL], 1142) byr -l and -k byr in Judges 6:31–32 mean “contend against.”

60

hans ausloos d[ rqbh μa μyhla awh bry wl yk ≈tn wjbzm ta Judg 6:32 arqyw wl μwyb awjj l[bry rmal bry wb l[bh yk ≈tn wjbzm ta

ἕως πρωί εἰ ἔστιν ! θεός αὐτὸς ἐκδικήσει αὐτόν ὅτι κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ∆ικαστήριον τοῦ Βααλ

– – – – ὅτι κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ

ἕως πρωί εἰ θεός ἒστιν !

–

δικαζέσθω αὐτῷ ὅτι καθεῖλεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Ιαρβααλ λέγων ∆ικασάσθω ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ Βααλ ὅτι καθῃρέθε τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ

The A-text and the B-text deviate sharply from one another. While the B-text appears to give a transliteration (Ιαρβααλ) of Gideon’s new name l[bry, the A-text renders Gideon’s new proper name with a description: ∆ικαστήριον τοῦ Βααλ.12 LEH translates the Greek hapax legomenon (in the Septuagint), which is clearly related to the verb δικάζω (‘to judge’), as “court of justice of Baal.” The minus in the A-text is possibly caused by parablepsis, whether at the level of the Vorlage or in the process of the realisation or transmission of the Greek text. Indeed, in the current version, there is not a single connection between Gideon’s new name and the formula κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ (κατασκάπτω, ‘destroy’). Intentional omission by the Septuagint translator is unlikely, bearing in mind the very expressive rendering of the term byr using the verbs δικάζω (LEH: “to plead one’s cause, to go to law”), ἀντεδικέω (LEH: “to oppose”) and ἐκδικέω (LEH: “to avenge”). Yet despite the deficiency in verse 32, the Septuagint translator, by choosing to render Gideon’s new

12 The proper noun Jerubbaal also appears in the book of Judges in 7:1 (A: Ιεροβααλ; B: Ιαρβαλ); 8:29 (A and B: Ιεροβααλ); 8:35 (A and B: Ιεροβααλ); 9:1, 2, 5(2x), 16, 19, 24, 28, 57 (A and B: Ιεροβααλ).

the book of judges

61

name as ∆ικαστήριον τοῦ Βααλ, reveals himself as somebody creative, who clearly makes the connection with the Baal dispute that Gideon’s behaviour, according to verse 31, had provoked. Moreover, as far as the sound is concerned at least (∆ικαστήριον and θυσιαστήριον), a clear connection is also made between Gideon’s new name and his actions against the altar of Baal. Unlike the A-text, the B-text makes no connection between Gideon’s new name Jerubbaal and the contention or argument against Baal. The B-text appears to opt for another interpretation. Here, there is no connection made between Gideon’s new name (Ιαρβααλ) and the leitmotiv byr that consistently has δικάζω as its equivalent.13 It is, however, not out of the question that the translator, contrary to mt, sees a correlation in his translation equivalent of the Hebrew verb ≈tn (‘destroy’), which he translates with the Greek verb καθαιρέω. After all, this verb is, at least in the B-version, a key concept in the pericope ( Judg 6:25, 28, 30, 31, 32). This translator is, to be sure, also consistent in his rendering of the term byr by using the term δικάζω. However, unlike in the A-version, which connects Gideon’s new name with the arguing against/contending (byr, δικάζω), the B-version, by using the transliteration, instead relates the name to Gideon’s destruction of the objects of the Baal cult. Ramath-lehi ( Judges 15:15–17) Having taken revenge for the Philistines’ violatation of his wife, Samson burns their harvest and slaughters them, the Philistines make camp in Judah and travel around pillaging in the vicinity of Lehi. When the people of Judah ask what they have done to deserve this course of action by the Philistines, they explain that their raid is one of revenge, and that they intend to capture Samson. In order to cool the wrath of the Philistines, the people of Judah take Samson captive and deliver him to the Philistines. They take him to Lehi, but Samson breaks his fetters and slays a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey. At which point, Samson shouts with joy. In the Hebrew text, his cry is, without doubt, formulated as a parallelismus membrorum, a form common in poetry: 13 Cf. the translation of Harlé and Roqueplo, Les Juges, 145: “que Baal lui fasse process, puisque son autel avait été démoli.”

62

hans ausloos

μytrmj rwmj rwmj yjlb With the jawbone of a donkey, one heap, two heaps

çya πla ytykh rwmh yjlb With the jawbone of a donkey, I have slain a thousand men

Although the meaning of the first colon in the Hebrew text is not totally clear, it appears that, in this version of the text, the author had a wordplay in mind. The noun rwmj (donkey) is followed by the identical term rwmj and, by the presumably related form μytrmj, which is usually considered a dual.14 Finding the meaning of μytrmj rwmj is like groping in the dark. Referring to E. König, KBL translate the term rwmj in Judg 15:16 as “haufenweise.”15 Various recent translations also move in this direction. kjv and nrsv for example translate it as follows: “With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps.” The Revised English Bible renders the formula as, “With the jaw-bone of a donkey I have flayed them like a donkey.” Finally, some scholars relate the expression to Judg 5:30: rbg çarl μytmjr μjr llç wqljy waxmy alh (“Have they not found and divided the spoils: one girl, two girls for every man?”). In line with this reading, the terms rwmj (singular) μytrmj (dual) in Judg 5:30 are likewise translated as ‘donkey’: “With the jawbone of a donkey, one donkey, two donkeys, with the jawbone of a donkey, I have struck a thousand men.”16 This last interpretation, however, does not appear to fit the context of verse 15 where the text clearly speaks about the jawbone of a single donkey (rwmj yjl). After his shout of joy, Samson throws the jawbone away and names the place “Ramath-lehi” (verse 17). If one connects the term tmr with the noun hmr, then the place name would mean “height of the jawbone/Lehi,” which would make the interpretation of μytrmj rwmj as “heaps upon heaps” plausible.

14 KBL, 314. Gerhard Lisowsky (Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament [2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981]) considers Judg 15:16 to be “aus Textverderbnis sprachlich unverständlich” (x). 15 KBL, 314. See Eduard König, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik (Leipzig: Weicher, 1900), 163. In addition to Judg 15:16 KBL also refers to Exod 8:10 as the only place where the term could possibly have this meaning. 16 See, for example, the recent Dutch translation by Pieter Oussoren: “Met het kaakbeen van die ezel, een ezel, twee ezels, met het kaakbeen van die ezel heb ik duizend man verslagen!” (De Naardense Bijbel [Vught: Skandalon, 2004]).

the book of judges mt Judg 15:15

axmyw yjl rwmj hyrf –

jlçyw wdy hjqyw ˚yw hb πla çya Judg 15:16 rmayw ˆwçmç yjlb rwmjh rwmj μytrmj –

yjlb rwmjh ytykh πla çya Judg 15:17 yhyw wtlkk rbdl ˚lçyw yjlh wdym arqyw μwqml awhh tmr yjl

63

lxx(A)

lxx(B)

καὶ εὗρεν σιαγόνα ὄνου ἐρριμμένην ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ ἐξέτεινεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπάταξεν ἐν αὐτῇ χιλίους ἄνδρας καὶ εἶπεν Σαμψων ἐν σιαγόνι – ὄνου ἐξαλείφων ἐξήλειψα αὐτούς ὅτι ἐν – σιαγόνι – ὄνου ἐπάταξα χιλίους ἄνδρας καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα συνετέλεσεν λαλῶν καὶ ἔρριψεν τὴν σιαγόνα ἀπὸ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον Ἀναίρεσις σιαγόνος

καὶ εὗρεν σιαγόνα ὄνου ἐκρεριμμένην

– καὶ ἐξέτεινεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπάταξεν ἐν αὐτῇ χιλίους ἄνδρας καὶ εἶπεν Σαμψων ἐν σιαγόνι ὄνου ἐξαλείφων ἐξήλειψα αὐτούς ὅτι ἐν τῇ σιαγόνι τοῦ ὄνου ἐπάταξα χιλίους ἄνδρας καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν καὶ ἔρριψεν τὴν σιαγόνα ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον Ἀναίρεσις σιαγόνος

In the Septuagint version, both in the A- and the B-versions, the verb ῥί́ πτω (‘to throw away’) plays an important role. In Judg 15:15(A) ἐρριμμένην is equivalent to the term hyrf, which is usually considered a form of hrf, an adjective not found in Hebrew, which is mostly translated as ‘fresh.’17 Judg 15:15(B) reads ἐκρεριμμένην, the passive perfect participle feminine singular of ἐκρίπτω (LEH: “to be spread 17

KBL, 363: “frisch.”

64

hans ausloos

abroad”). Noting the extremely unusual character of the Hebrew term—apart from Judg 15:15, this lexeme only appears in Isaiah 1:6 (“fresh wounds”)—it is conceivable that the Septuagint translator had difficulties in the rendering thereof. If one accepts that this was the term that appeared in the translator’s Vorlage, then it appears that the translator of Judg 15:15 strove to craft a meaningful translation for a term of which he did not know the meaning. According to Schleusner, the Greek word is equivalent to the term hjyrf (√jrf).18 However, the root jrf only occurs in Job 37:11 (Hifil) and is thus a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew bible.19 Moreover, the verb in Job 37:11 is accompanied by the prefix -b. Furthermore, the Greek equivalent in Job 37:11 is not ῥ ́ίπτω, but καταπλάσσω (literally, ‘to plaster over’; so, ‘to cover’). Another hypothesis therefore looks more plausible. It is possible that the choice of the Greek term ῥ ́ίπτω is consciously or unconsciously inspired by relating the form hyrf to the Hebrew verb hry (‘throw’), of which the Hifil participle (hrwm) demonstrates a relationship to the letter-image of hyrf.20 This is supported by the finding that, in Exod 15:4, the verb hry also has the Greek term ρίπτω as its translation equivalent. Likewise, it is possible that the translator had the verb hmr in mind, which also means ‘to throw away.’ As such, he could have read hymr (participle feminine singular) instead of hyrf. Therefore, in addition to the confusion of the consonants m and f, a metathesis of them would also come into play.21 In the Septuagint, hmr also has ῥ ́ίπτω as its translation equivalent.22 Furthermore, the translator, by opting for the term ῥ ́ίπτω in verse 15, appears deliberately to strengthen the connection with Judg 15:17. Just as Samson picks up a thrown away (ἐρριμμένην/ἐκρεριμμένην) jawbone of a donkey with his hand (τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ) in verse 15, so he throws (ἔρριψεν) the same jawbone from his hand (ἐκ/ἀπὸ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ). Finally, it must be mentioned that the Greek ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ

18 Johann F. Schleusner, Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus, sive Lexicon in lxx et reliquos interpretes graecos ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti (Glasgow: Academy of Glasgow, 1822; repr., Turnhout: Brepols, 1994), 725: “dejecit, abjecit.” See also LEH, 187. 19 The related substantive jrf (“last”) only appears in Deut 1:12 and Isa 1:14. 20 Emanuel Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [2d rev. ed.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gorcum, 2001]) nevertheless makes no mention of the exchangeability of the consonants m and f. 21 For similar complex variants, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 255–256. 22 See, for example, Exod 15:1, 21.

the book of judges

65

in lxx(A) has no equivalent in the Hebrew. In this regard, lxx(B) then also corresponds to mt. Although the translator has not succeeded in reproducing the Hebrew language game in the explanation of the name in the Greek translation, he has still remained very faithful to the meaning of the Vorlage and he has sought to follow its intentions as faithfully as possible. This is apparent in the way in which he renders the difficult construction μytrmj rwmj rwmjh yjlb ( Judg 15:16). The Septuagint reads ἐξαλείφων ἐξήλειψα αὐτούς. The obscure Hebrew term rmj is twice rendered using a form of the verb ἐξαλείφω (‘wipe out’, ‘destroy’). Evidently, the translator has interpreted the Hebrew expression μytrmj rwmj as a paronomastic construction, which, as is often the case, he renders using a combination of a participle with a finite form of the same verbal root.23 According to Sollamo, this rendering is “the most literal method” of translating a construction when the infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb.24 Precisely which verb the translator had in mind cannot be determined with any certainty. There are various possibilities. If one considers the Hebrew text nowadays at hand as Vorlage, then that leads to the verb rmj, which according to KBL is only used to mean “schinden” in Judg 15:16.25 Therefore, with regard to its meaning, there would be some agreement with the lxx version. Another possibility is that the translator has related the Hebrew construction μytrmj rwmj to the Hebrew verb hjm.26 This term, after all, frequently has ἐξαλείφω as its translation equivalent in the Septuagint.27

23 Cf. Raija Sollamo, “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch,” in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos; Testos y Studios “Cardenal Cisneros”; Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC, 1985), 101–113. Henry St. J. Thackeray (“Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the lxx,” JTS 9 [1908]: 597–601, esp. 597–598) describes this Greek rendering as “distinctly unidiomatic.” The German Einheitsübersetzung (1980: “Mit dem Kinnbacken eines Esels habe ich sie gründlich verprügelt”) as well as the French La Bible de Jérusalem (Nouvelle édition revue et corrigé; 1998: “Avec une mâchoire d’âne, je les ai bien étrillés”) and the Traduction œcuménique de la Bible (Nouvelle édition; 2004: “Avec une mâchoire d’âne je les ai étrillés”) follow the interpretation of the Septuagint. 24 Sollamo, “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute,” 103. 25 Refering to Willem Gesenius and Frants Buhl (Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [17th ed.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1915]), KBL (317) translates this verb as “schinden.” 26 KBL, 537–538: “auswischen, vertilgen.” 27 See, for example, Gen 7:4, 23; 9:15. Also, Judg 21:17 has ἐξαλείφω as the translation equivalent for hjm. See also Harlé and Roqueplo, Les Juges, 214.

66

hans ausloos

Finally, the way in which lxx renders yjl tmr as ἀναίρεσις σιαγόνος must be examined. By analogy with Judg 15:14, 15(2x), 16, 19, the term yjl is translated using σιαγόνος. In Judg 15:14(AB) the term is used as a toponym: ἦλθεν ἕως Σιαγόνος. In Judg 15:9 on the other hand, yjl is transliterated. Here, the A-text reads Λεχι; yet, the B-text reads Λευι. If one considers the term tmr in Judg 15:17 as the status constructus of the noun hmr (‘height’, ‘heap’), then there is no connection with the Greek substantive ἀναίρεσις, which, apart from in Judg 15:17, only occurs in Num 11:15 (as the equivalent of grh). This is also logical, considering that the translator, as has been shown, does not connect the construction μytrmj rwmj with substantives that mean ‘heap,’ but rather considers it a paronomastic construction. Although there is no lexicographical connection between the term ἀναίρεσις and any other term in the pericope, the translator still succeeds in rendering it well, as far as content is concerned; in other words, connecting the place name to what Samson had done among the Philistines. It would have perhaps been more beautiful had the translator rendered the term tmr as ἐξάλειψις, a term that nevertheless seems to occur exclusively in the Old Testament with the meaning ‘destruction.’28 The Spring of the One who Called ( Judges 15:18–19) Immediately after the aetiological episode of the jawbone, a second aetiological passage follows. After slaughtering the Philistines, Samson develops a massive thirst. He calls out to God with the following words: “Am I now to die of thirst, and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?” God splits open the rock at Lehi and water comes out. After he has drunk of the water, Samson’s strength returns. That is why the spring is called “The Spring of the One who Called.” In the Hebrew text, the aetiology is therefore clear: the spring is called “Spring of

28 See “ἐξάλειψις,” LSJ, 583. In the Old Testament the term is attested too in Mic 7:11: ἐξάλειψίς σου ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη (cf. nets, provisional edition. Cited 21.03.2007. Online: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/twelve.pdf ): “That day will be your erasure.” The connection with Mic 7:11(mt) is, however, unclear. The term also appears in the Codex Alexandrinus of Job 15:23 ( Joseph Ziegler, ed., Iob [vol XI/4 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 278). Finally, in Ezek 9:6 ἐξάλειψίς is the equivalent of tyjçm (“destruction”).

the book of judges

67

the One who Called” because it came about as the divine answer to Samson’s call. mt

lxx(A)

lxx(B) καὶ ἐδίψησεν σφόδρα καὶ ἔκλαυσεν πρὸς κύριον

Judg 15:18

amxyw dam arqyw la hwhy

καὶ ἐδίψησεν σφόδρα καὶ ἐβόησεν πρὸς κύριον

Judg 15:19

...

...

ˆk l[ arq hmç ˆy[ arwqh rça yjlb d[ μwyh

διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Πηγη ἐπίκλητος

διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Πηγη τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου ἥ ἐστιν ἐν Σιαγόνι ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης

...

hzh

– – σιαγόνος ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης

In this passage, the A-version and the B-version differ markedly from one another. In the A-version, Samson’s call in Judg 15:18 (arq)—this term is crucial in the aetiology—has the usual βοάω as its translation equivalent. The B-text uses the aorist ἔκλαυσεν (√ κλαίω), which, in the whole of the Septuagint only appears as the equivalent of arq in Judg 9:7, 15:18, 16:28 (all in the B-version). In Judg 15:19, however, both versions translate the verb arq (Qal ) using the customary verb καλέω (here a passive aorist). One encounters another fundamental difference between the Aand the B-versions in Judg 15:19. The verb [qbyw is rendered in A as ἤνοιξεν (ἀνοιγῶ, ‘to open’), while B reads ἔρρηξεν (ρήγνυμι/ρήσσω, ‘(to cause) to break,’ ‘to split’). The Hebrew noun çtkm is problematic. KBL translates the term in Judg 15:19 as “Backenzahn.” Elsewhere, KBL translates the term as a deverbal of çtk (“klein schlagen, zerstossen”; so: “Mörser”). The Greek A-version has τὸ τραῦμα (LEH: “the wound”) as the equivalent. This does not make meaning any clearer in the Greek A-version than it is in the Hebrew.29 The B-version has the

29 Cf. Harlé and Roqueplo, Les Juges, 215: “il s’agirait d’une saignée faite à la mâchoire (?).” Their commentary is also very doubtful and in no way based on the text at hand: “Pour B, il s’agit d’une cavité créée à l’endroit où a été rejetée la mâchoire, sens qui est probablement celui de l’hébreu du TM.”

68

hans ausloos

term λάκκος (‘pit,’ ‘den,’ ‘well’) as the equivalent. With this, a meaningful text is indeed created: God made the spring burst open, which is in Siagon(os). Indeed, the use of the article in the construction ἐν τῇ σιαγόνι does not necessarily imply that the translator cannot have interpreted σιαγών as a toponym. After all, the Greek allows one to use an article in combination with already mentioned place names.30 The A- and B-texts also differ with regard to the explanation of the name. For the meaning, the B-text relies heavily on mt. The A-text has two deficiencies, which lead to a different meaning. In place of, “the Spring of the One who Called, which is at Lehi,” the A text reads, “The spring that is called: Siagonos.” The B-text is closer to mt: “The Spring of the calling one, which is at Siagon(os).” Possibly, the translator or the Vorlage read awrqh in place of arwqh.31 This conjecture, however, offers no explanation for the minuses with regard to the particle rça and the prefix -b. In any case, the A-version has not succeeded in preserving the aetiology of mt. Indeed, unlike in mt, where the spring is named the “Spring of the One who Called” because of Samson’s call, the Greek A-text of Judg 15:19(A) names the spring as “Jawbone/ Siagon(os).” The aetiology in lxx(A) is of another order. Here, a connection is made between the noun σιαγόνος, which obviously functions as a toponym in Judg 15:19(A)—note the minus for the prefix -b—, and the same term at the beginning of verse 19. The B-text, on the other hand, sticks more closely to mt: “The Spring of the calling one, which is at Siagon(os).” Clearly, the noun σιαγόνος in Judg 15:19(B) again functions as a toponym, as it does in Judg 15:14. The Camp of Dan ( Judges 18:11–12) In contrast to the other tribes of Israel, the tribe of Dan, according to Judg 18, still had no territory of its own. Following an exploration of the hill country of Ephraim, six hundred armed Danites are sent out.

Furthermore it is noted that Judg 15:19(A) translates the Hebrew μym as a plural (ὕδατα). Likewise ἐν αὐτῷ is a plus with regard to mt. 30 Consequently, the translation by Harlé and Roqueplo (Les Juges, 215–217) is in no way indisputable: “Et Dieu fit éclater la cavité qui était dans la mâchoire.” 31 As such LEH, 229. Harlé and Roqueplo (Les Juges, 215) exclusively speak about another vocalisation: “haqqōrē est un participe actif: « qui appelle »; mais avec une vocalisation différente, haqqarū est un participe passif: « qui est appelé ».” Let it be noted however that a metathesis of the consonants w and r is required.

the book of judges

69

They make camp west of Kiriath-jearim in Judah. That is why, so says the author of Judges, “this place is still called the Camp of Dan.” mt Judg 18:11

w[syw μçm tjpçmm yndh h[rxm latçamw twam çç çya rwgj ylk hmjlm Judg 18:12 wl[yw wnjyw μyr[y tyrqb hdwhyb ˆk l[ warq μwqml awhh ˆd hnjm

lxx(A)

lxx(B)

καὶ ἀπῆραν

καὶ ἀπῆραν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπὸ δήμων τοῦ ∆αν ἀπὸ Σαραα καὶ ἀπὸ Εσθαολ ἑξακόσιοι ἄνδρες ἐζωσμένοι σκεύη παρατάξεως καὶ ἀνέβησαν καὶ παρενέβαλον ἐν Καριαθιαριμ ἐν Ιουδα διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη ἐν ἐκείνῳ ! τῷ τόπῳ ! Παρεμβολὴ ∆αν

– ἐκ συγγενείας τοῦ ∆αν ἐκ Σαραα καὶ Εσθαολ ἑξακόσιοι ἄνδρες περιεζωσμένοι σκεύη πολεμικά καὶ ἀνέβησαν καὶ παρενεβάλοσαν ἐν Καριαθιαριμ ἐν Ιουδα διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τῷ τόπῳ ! ἐκείνῳ ! Παρεμβολὴ ∆αν

Both the A- and the B-texts translate the name given to the encampment west of Kiriath-jearim as Παρεμβολὴ ∆αν. The term is used very often in the Septuagint, and usually appears, as in Judg 18:12, as the equivalent of the noun hnjm. mt relates the name ˆd hnjm to the verb hnj (‘to encamp’). In lxx, one encounters the same interpretation: the place is called Παρεμβολὴ ∆αν because the tribe of Dan made camp there (παρενεβάλοσαν/παρενεβαλον; √ παρεμβάλλω, LEH: “to encamp”). In this pericope, lxx gives a very literal—even slavish—translation of mt, which is further apparent from the use of the dative τῷ τόπῳ ἐκείνῳ/ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ τόπῳ as the equivalent of awhh μwqml. Nonetheless, the aetiology is still well expressed in the Greek. Conclusion In her scholarly analyses of the Septuagint translations, Raija Sollamo has paid particular attention to the grammatical and syntactical characteristics of the Hebrew text and the manner in which the translators handled these. This method has delivered extremely useful results with

70

hans ausloos

regard to the characterisation of the Greek translators. In addition to her research, our contribution concerning the Greek rendering of the Hebrew hapax legomena in Canticles has shown that the analysis of other, less grammatically orientated features of mt, and especially the way in which the Septuagint translator handles these, can also help one to arrive at a nuanced characterisation of the translator. This contribution, which I dedicate with great respect to Professor Sollamo, also aimed at investigating the way in which a translator deals with specific content related features of his Vorlage, namely the phenomenon of the aetiology of toponyms. Since aetiologies indeed try the translator’s creativity to the extreme, they are also a good yardstick by which we can assess the way in which he treats the Vorlage. The preceding analyses of the aetiologies in the book of Judges reveal, for the A- as well as for the B-version, a translator who, regarding word order and segmentation among other things, usually sticks closely to his Vorlage or who even appears to want to follow it slavishly. Nevertheless, the translator—and this is especially true in the B-version—seems simultaneously to strive to give a meaningful rendering of the aetiologies in his Vorlage, even though one would sometimes expect other choices. In the Greek, the translator mostly strives to give clear expression to the connections between certain activities or events and the toponyms, just as in mt. In other cases, the translator—perhaps as a result of the lack of clarity in the Vorlage—seems to offer an interpretation that deviates from mt. Finally, this analysis of the aetiologies in Judges seems to confirm Sipilä’s analysis of the circumstantial yk clauses in this book.32 Although grammatical and linguistic research into the Septuagint version of Judges would perhaps characterise it as very literal or slavish, the sometimes inventive ways in which the translator deals with the aetiologies shed

32 Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom, 168–180. See also Seppo Sipilä, “The Renderings of the Circumstantial yk Clauses in the lxx of Joshua and Judges,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001) 49–61: “the translators analysed the context and found suitable ways to render it. This means that the narrow segmentation did not prevent consideration of the wider context if necessary. The overall literal character of the translator does not, thus, affect his ability to translate properly” (61).

the book of judges

71

light on a competent translator who—at least as far as this question is concerned—is in no way the weakest of all Septuagint translators, even if, with regard to quantitative representation and segmentation, he appears to closely follow the Hebrew Vorlage.33

33 Contrary to e.g., Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Die Textformen der Septuaginta: Übersetzung des Richterbuches (AASF B 72,1; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1951), 60. Compare with Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom, 212: “Admittedly, Judges is a very literal translation. Yet even it contains some very clever and inventive renderings demonstrating the competence of the translator.”

“STATUTE” OR “COVENANT”? REMARKS ON THE RENDERING OF THE WORD qj IN THE GREEK BEN SIRA Marko Marttila 1. Introduction The term qjo / hQ;ju occurs frequently with diverse meanings in the Hebrew Old Testament.1 Despite these two different spellings, there is hardly any significant difference in meaning between the words.2 When qj / hqj is attested in biblical texts, it can be classified into two main groups. First of all, this word can mean ‘portion’ or ‘limit’ in a general sense ( Jer 5:22; Ps 148:6; Job 14:5, 13; 38:10; Prov 8:29; 30:8 etc.).3 It is much more common, however, to find this term used as a legal concept. In such cases, qj / hqj usually occurs in the same context together with the other terms related to the law, such as hwxm, twd[, fpçm and hrwt. Occasionally, these terms may be used even as synonyms. Generally, the term qj is rendered into English in legal connections with equivalents such as ‘statute,’ ‘decree,’ ‘prescription’ or ‘law.’ The frequency of the word qj varies in different biblical books. Particularly often this term can be encountered in the Priestly Work and in the Holiness Code. As regards the Priestly Work, the meaning of the term is usually either ‘cultic order’ or ‘cultic duty.’4 It is characteristic of the language of Deuteronomy that this term only occurs in the plural

1 The verbs qqj and hqj belong to the same linguistic root, but in this article I shall not pay any particular attention to these verbs. Concerning their etymology and use in the Old Testament I would like to refer to the following studies: Richard Hentschke, Satzung und Setzender: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Rechtsterminologie (BWANT 83; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963), 7–11; Helmer Ringgren, “qqj,” ThWAT III:149–57 (1982). 2 The great lexicon of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner gives the following equivalents for qj: ‘portion,’ ‘term,’ ‘prescribed task,’ ‘appropriate portion,’ ‘due,’ ‘allotted portion,’ ‘appointed time,’ ‘limit,’ ‘law,’ ‘regulation,’ ‘prescription,’ and ‘rule.’ For hqj the same lexicon gives equivalents such as ‘due,’ ‘human statutes,’ and ‘divine statute,’ see Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I (a–j) (Subsequently revised by W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm; Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 346–47. 3 Hentschke, Satzung, 23–27; Ringgren, “qqj,” 151. 4 Ringgren, “qqj,” 153.

74

marko marttila

(μyqj / twqj),5 and exclusively in chains put together by different legal concepts. These chains often have a parenetic intention.6 In Chronicles (1–2Chr), the law terminology is dependent on the Deuteronomistic Vorlage. Even in those parts that are created by the Chronist himself, there are chains typical of Dtr theology. The purpose of such chains is to emphasise the totality of the laws.7 In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the word qj occurs only rather seldom. Except the Book of Ezekiel, it is unattested in the prophetic books. The term qj / hqj is frequently used in the Book of Ezekiel, and quite often occurs with a similar cultic meaning in the Priestly Work. This is not, as such, any big surprise because the close lexical and thematic connections between the Book of Ezekiel and the Priestly Work have long been acknowledged by scholars. Currently, the relationship between these texts is seen in the manner in which the Priestly Work has accumulated influences from the Book of Ezekiel, and thus the Priestly Work is a later composition.8 In the Book of Psalms, qj / hqj occurs altogether 33 times ( qj thirty times; hqj three times),9 which can be regarded as a remarkable number. The lxx translation of different Old Testament books offers various equivalents for the Hebrew term qj / hqj. The dispersion of variant translations is particularly wide when qj / hqj means ‘portion’ or ‘limit’ in a general sense. In such cases, the most common Greek equivalents are δόσις, σύνταξις, ὅριον, χρόνος, αὐτάρκη, ἔργον, and τροπή.10 Sometimes the lxx translator has chosen a Greek legal term, though the Hebrew text would use qj in a non-legal connection.11 In the judicial context, qj / hqj is translated in the lxx with the following words (N.B. Now we are talking about the translations of those biblical books that belong to the Hebrew canon): νόμιμον (quite often in the firm structure νόμιμον αἰώνιον; cf. μlw[ ?t¿qj), νόμος, δικαίωμα, πρόσταγμα, διαστολὴ τοῦ νόμου, ἐντολή, ἀκριβασμός, and διακρίβεια.12 5 Georg Braulik, “Die Ausdrücke für ‘Gesetz’ im Buch Deuteronomium,” in Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 2; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 24–25. 6 Ringgren, “qqj,” 154. 7 Hentschke, Satzung, 95–99; Ringgren, “qqj,” 154. 8 Christoph Levin, Das Alte Testament (Wissen in der Beck´schen Reihe 2160; München: C. H. Beck, 2001), 75. 9 Hentschke, Satzung, 100. 10 For a more detailed list, see Hentschke, Satzung, 103–4. 11 Ibid., 104. 12 Ibid., 106–9.

“statute”

or “covenant”?

75

In this article, I shall concentrate on analysing the rendering of qj in the Greek Ben Sira. The textual history of the Wisdom of Ben Sira is a complicated issue, and comparing the Greek translation with the Hebrew original is markedly aggravated by the fact that only 68% of Ben Sira’s Hebrew text is known at the moment. In those parts that are not preserved in Hebrew (or have not yet been unearthed) we can only assume which Hebrew term existed in the Vorlage used by the translator. The time of origin for Ben Sira’s composition can be defined with a considerable amount of accuracy, which is quite exceptional when we speak about a book that is still closely related to the milieu of the Old Testament period. The decisive piece of information for dating the Wisdom of Ben Sira can be found in the preface of the Greek translation where the translator (Ben Sira’s grandson) explains that he had arrived in Egypt in the 38th year of the reign of King Euergetes. In our chronology, the 38th year of King Euergetes corresponds approximately to 132 b.c.e.13 When two generations are counted backwards from this year, we may end up with 190–180 b.c.e.14 It is important to continually bear in mind that the original Book of Ben Sira was not written in one sitting. It is rather a collection of Ben Sira’s teachings from different decades. Thus the different parts of the book may date from quite different circumstances. In any case, the original Hebrew

In Hellenistic Egypt, there were two Ptolemies who had the additional name ‘Euergetes.’ Ptolemy III Euergetes I cannot come into question here, because he reigned ‘only’ 25 years. Hence, the only choice must be Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II who ruled as a king 170–164 and 145–116 b.c.e.; thus, for instance, Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 37; Georg Sauer, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira (ATDA 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 40. In practice, the same ruler is meant by many other scholars, too, but they err by calling him Ptolemy VII Euergetes II; thus, for instance, Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vormakkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT II/6; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980), 1; Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 8. This controversy arises from the complicated history of the Ptolemaic rulers. In fact, there was practically never a king called Ptolemy VII, because Ptolemy VI was directly followed by Ptolemy VIII (Euergetes II). Ptolemy VII was the second son of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II, but he was murdered in 145 b.c.e. and the murder was ordered by Ptolemy VIII. Therefore Thomas Schneider writes of Ptolemy VII: “Seine Einfügung in die ptolemäische Herrscherlinie durch die Numerierung >VII.< ist unkorrekt” (Lexikon der Pharaonen [München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1996], 339). 14 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 22. 13

76

marko marttila

form of the book seems to have been in its final stage, or at least quite close to it, around 175 b.c.e.15 Ben Sira does not seem to have known the rude measures of Hellenization carried out by Antiochos IV Epiphanes, nor the Maccabean wars which were the direct consequence of Antiochos’s endeavours. The translation made by the grandson was probably finished shortly after the death of Euergetes II in 117 b.c.e.16 This translation sheds interesting light on the manner in which ancient translators worked. Otherwise, our knowledge concerning the lxx translators is very limited indeed. We do not know any personal data about them, nor about the conditions under which they worked. But the translator’s preface to the Wisdom of Ben Sira is invaluable in this respect. Ben Sira’s grandson endeavoured to make as fluent a translation as possible, but he admits in his preface that the translation cannot grasp the originality of the Hebrew text. This statement probably reveals the grandson’s veiled frustration. As the prologue indicates, the grandson was able to write good Greek, but his translation does not reach the same level. The translation remains ‘wooden,’ but it is likely that this is due to the contemporary ideals concerning what the translations should look like. Literal renderings were preferred, and overly strict literalness resulted in bad Greek. It is beyond doubt that the grandson was aware of the earlier lxx translations, and they served as a model for his own work.17 The grandson, however, seems to have done his translation rather independently. This means that he did not always choose the same equivalents that were widely used by his predecessors. This raises the question concerning the translation technique adopted by the grandson. In her dissertation, our Jubilar, Prof. Raija Sollamo, examined the renderings of Hebrew semiprepositions in the lxx. In her study, she sheds some light also on the apocryphal scriptures. In light with her results, the Greek Ben Sira is not the most slavish rendering of the apocrypha, but neither is it among the free translations.18 In a recent article, which concerns the place of the enclitic personal pronouns, Sollamo draws the conclusion that the Greek Psalter is

15 Johannes Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BZAW 272; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 9. 16 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 8–9; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 40 n. 9; Benjamin G. Wright, “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and Their Audiences,” JSJ 34 (2003): 12. 17 Wright, “Access,” 14–19. 18 Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss. Hum. Litt. 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 290–97.

“statute”

or “covenant”?

77

among the most literal translations, but the Greek translation of Sirach approaches idiomatic Greek.19 Some scholars may discuss the grandson’s translation rather briefly and on a superficial level, even saying that he usually translated “quite literally.”20 Benjamin G. Wright warns about oversimplifications when we are using concepts such as ‘literal’ or ‘free’ translation technique.21 The translation always consists of so many components (e.g. renderings of semiprepositions, or renderings of infinitives,22 adherence to word order etc.) that the translation of one and the same book may in one sense be quite literal but in another respect it might be relatively free. On the basis of those features that Wright examines in his dissertation—adherence to word order, segmentation of Hebrew words, quantitative representation of the Hebrew parent text, and consistency of lexical representation—the Greek form of Ben Sira appears to be a freer translation than usually assumed. This state of affairs is aptly elucidated by the title “No Small Difference” that Wright has chosen for his study (this is naturally a quotation from the grandson’s prologue: οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφθοράν). But still in comparison with the other lxx translations, Ben Sira’s grandson’s work can be defined as being “fairly literal,” as Wright himself admits in a recent article.23 Despite the complex textual history, those passages in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, where the Hebrew text has been preserved, shed light in an interesting manner on translating the word qj in lxx. First of all, it is important to clarify that in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the term in question occurs in the form qj or often as a scriptio plena qwj, but it is 19 Raija Sollamo, “The Place of the Enclitic Personal Pronouns in the Old Greek Psalter,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004 (Ed. M. K. H. Peters; SBLSCS 54; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 160. 20 For instance, Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 132. 21 Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 20–23. 22 Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen (Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta [AASF B 132,1; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965], 191–96) analyses the translation technique of the Greek Ben Sira on the basis of how the Hebrew infinitives were translated into Greek. In an early study, Henry Thackeray was of the opinion that the Greek form of Ben Sira represents a translation technique that he calls “indifferent Greek.” To the same category in his classification belongs the Book of Psalms which is usually regarded as a quite literal rendering. Good κοινή Greek is in Thackeray’s opinion represented only by the books of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, 1Maccabees and partly the Book of Joshua (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint I [Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1909/1978], 13–14). 23 Wright, “Access,” 19.

78

marko marttila

never attested by Ben Sira in the feminine form hqj. It is most peculiar that the Greek translation of Ben Sira uses different equivalents to qj throughout as the examples mentioned above. Four times qj is translated using κρίμα in the Greek Ben Sira (38:22; 41:2–3; 43:10).24 In addition to this, there are some equivalents that occur only once, such as μαρτυρία, παρελεύσεται, and ἐν καιροῖς αὐτῶν. The most interesting observation is, however, that as often as ten times the term qj is translated using διαθήκη (11:20; 14:12, 17; 16:22; 42:2; 44:20; 45:5, 7, 17; 47:11). In addition to these examples, a special case in 45:24 deserves our attention, because there διαθήκη functions simultaneously as an equivalent to both qj and tyrb. Translating qj into Greek with διαθήκη is completely without parallel among other lxx-versions. As regards the canonical books, διαθήκη occurs as an equivalent to the following Hebrew terms: Above all, it is used as a counterpart to tyrb in the theological meaning ‘covenant.’ Besides, the words hwja, rbd, bwtk, twd[, hrwt, and μlç (Hiph.) are occasionally translated using διαθήκη in the lxx-version of Ben Sira.25 The Greek translators of the other biblical books never connect the words qj and διαθήκη. That this happens in the Greek Ben Sira is a phenomenon that requires explanation. The purpose of this article is to bring more light on the problem of why qj is so often translated using διαθήκη in the Greek Ben Sira. In my analysis, I intend to systematically go through all the passages in Ben Sira where qj is translated with διαθήκη and try to deduce on the basis of the context, which features possibly have influenced the choices made by the translator. It is even likely that qj has occurred in the translator’s Vorlage in such passages that are no longer preserved in Hebrew but in which lxx uses the term διαθήκη. For instance, a famous Ben Sira scholar, Johannes Marböck, argues that in Sir 17:12 the Greek form διαθήκην αἰῶνος would be a translation from the original Hebrew expression μlw[ qj.26 Altogether, the word διαθήκη occurs 23 times in the Greek Ben Sira.

24 Dominique Barthélemy and Otto Rickenbacher, Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirachbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 134–35. 25 See the precise occurrences in Edward Hatch and Henry Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897), 300. 26 Johannes Marböck, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch,” in Der neue Bund im alten (ed. E. Zenger; QD 146; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 186. Marböck’s opinion as concerns Sir 17:12 is criticised by Timo Veijola who defends the priority of μlw[ tyrb in the background of the Greek translation, see Timo Veijola, “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s

“statute”

or “covenant”?

79

Before the analysis of individual passages, it is important to have a glance at the use of διαθήκη in the Classical Greek. The word διαθήκη covers a wide semantic field in the Hellenistic literature. Certainly, it is most commonly used for ‘last will’ and ‘testament’ (such a meaning of διαθήκη is also attested in the New Testament; e.g. Gal 3:15, 17; and Hebrew 9:16–17). Moreover, the word διαθήκη can be found in the sense of ‘agreement’ or ‘treaty,’ but this kind of use is seldom in the Classical Greek.27 The Classical Greek also seems to have been aware of the employment of διαθήκη in a general sense of ‘ordinance’ or ‘disposition.’28 Such meanings arise from the verb διατίθημι with which διαθήκη is often linked. The verb διατίθημι in the middle voice means ‘to treat,’ ‘to dispose,’ ‘to establish,’ or ‘to arrange’.29 One should add to this list the meaning of ‘to decree’ (see, for example, Luke 22:29), and exactly the same meaning can be ascribed to the Hebrew verb qqj.30 If the verbal forms διατίθημι and qqj basically have a similar meaning, it is consistent that even the substantives derived from these verbal patterns have similarities with each other. Therefore διαθήκη and qj may function as literal equivalents when ‘decrees’ or ‘ordinances’ are referred to. We cannot be sure how widely Ben Sira’s grandson knew the Hellenistic literature that existed at the time when he studied Greek or made his translation. Neither do we know how well he was aware of the several meanings of individual Greek words. But when analysing the passages where he renders qj with διαθήκη one must bear in mind the possibility that the grandson had some knowledge of διαθήκη in the general sense of ‘ordinance’ without any specific theological reference to covenant.

Teaching of the Law,” in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (eds. J. Neusner et al.; New York: University Press of America, 2006), 445 n. 41. 27 Johannes Behm mentions only one known example from the Classical Greek authors where διαθήκη means ‘agreement’ or ‘treaty,’ see Behm, “Der griechische Begriff διαθήκη,” TWNT II: ∆–H (1935), 127. 28 Ibid., 128. 29 Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 148. 30 Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 347.

80

marko marttila 2. Analysis of Individual Passages a) Sir 11:20 (Sir 11:18 in P. C. Beentjes’s edition)31

This verse is part of a wider collection of teachings where Ben Sira gives instructions to his readership about the providence and trust in God (Sir 11:7–28). In v. 20, the Hebrew text is slightly corrupt but it is fortunately easy to supplement with the aid of lxx: ˚qwjb [dm][ [ yn ]b στῆθι ἐν διαθήκῃ σου The theological meaning of ‘covenant’ does not correspond well to the function of qj in this connection, though Di Lella aims at theological explanation by insisting that the principal duty prescribed for the Israelite was to fulfill the stipulations of the Covenant.32 Rather, Ben Sira talks about man’s lot, in which one should stay. Hence, the word qj occurs here in its non-legal basic meaning ‘portion’ or ‘share.’ On the other hand, it is possible to interpret qj as a prescribed duty, which clarifies the equivalent chosen by the Greek translator. The word διαθήκη corresponds well to the basic meaning of the Hebrew sentence, if we understand διαθήκη in the sense of ‘ordinance’: One should stay in the position that has been ordained to him. b) Sir 14:12 and 17 33 Both of these verses belong to the same context that concentrates on the responsible use of wealth. V. 12a ˚l dgh al lwaçl qwjw

καὶ διαθήκη ᾅδου οὐχ ὑπεδείχθη σοι

31 The following text editions are consulted: For the Hebrew: Pancratius C. Beentjes, ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); and for the Greek: Joseph Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (vol. XII/2 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societas Litterarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). The verse numbers referring to the Wisdom of Ben Sira are in accordance with the recommendations given by Friedrich Reiterer in his synopsis, see Friedrich V. Reiterer, Zählsynopse zum Buch Ben Sira. (Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes, Band 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). The Hebrew text of Sir 11:20 is preserved in Manuscript A. 32 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 239–40. This interpretation seems somehow forced. I think that Wright is more firmly on track when he says that the Greek translation seems to completely miss the intended meaning of the Hebrew (Wright, No Small Difference, 181). 33 The Hebrew text of these verses is preserved in Manuscript A.

“statute”

or “covenant”?

81

In this particular case, it is more difficult here to define the original shade of qj than in the text above, because in principle both ‘the share of death’ and ‘the decree of death’ make sense in this context. Be that as it may, the Greek translation using διαθήκη is surprising, if we consider this word only in its covenantal meaning. Above we have noticed, however, that διαθήκη sometimes in Classical Greek has similar meanings to qj in its non-legal use. Moreover, even the seldom attested meaning of διαθήκη as a ‘treaty’ may be possible in this context, if the translator has thought of a treaty with death that remains incomprehensible for mortal human beings. V. 17 w[wgy [wg μlw[ qwjw

ἡ γὰρ διαθήκη ἀπ’ αἰῶνος θανάτῳ ἀποθανῇ

In this verse, Ben Sira states that mortality is an eternal law / prescription, because everyone has to die. Thus the Hebrew word qj occurs here in its normal legal meaning. The phrase ‘eternal law’ is quite common in the Holiness Code, but outside the Wisdom of Ben Sira this Hebrew expression μlw[ qj is usually translated into Greek as νόμιμον αἰώνιον. This phrase occurs so often in biblical texts that it can be regarded as a kind of terminus technicus. But the translator of the Wisdom of Ben Sira uses the structure διαθήκη ἀπ’ αἰώνος instead of this fixed saying. Such a deviation is even more surprising when we bear in mind that the Greek translator must have known the other extant Greek translations of biblical books in Alexandria. Those other books served as a model for his own translation project.34 But, as Wright has convincingly demonstrated, the grandson often chose different equivalents than his predecessors. The grandson wanted to produce his own translation without leaning too heavily on the works of others. c) Sir 16:2235 Concerning this verse, the Hebrew and Greek text differ from each other quite significantly. The Hebrew text poses a rhetorical question, whereas the Greek text replaces the question with a statement. qwj qwxa yk hm twqtw ἤ τίς ὑπομενεῖ; μακρὰν γὰρ ἡ διαθήκη

34 Benjamin G. Wright III, “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Greek Translation,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 642–44. 35 The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript A.

82

marko marttila

In any case, the Hebrew text clearly refers to a legal context by asking what the benefit is if someone obeys the commandments. In a context like this, the word qj can easily be interpreted as a close synonym for the word hrwt. In many biblical books, these two words act quite synonymously,36 and it is evident that Ben Sira’s grandson dealt with these concepts as if they were synonyms. In this particular case, however, it seems that the grandson has somehow misunderstood the original Hebrew text. His translation has at this point a temporal dimension (μακρὰν γὰρ ἡ διαθήκη probably means ‘since the end is far off’). The Hebrew term qj is sometimes attested to have the meaning ‘a specific or appointed time’ (e.g. Micah 7:11; Zeph 2:2; Job 14:13). The grandson’s decision to render it here as διαθήκη is difficult to explain. Perhaps he had a kind of model in his mind that the most useful equivalent to qj was διαθήκη and therefore this plan was followed, even if the sentence in the original Hebrew text was obscure. d) Sir 42:237 In this verse, qj indisputably reflects legal terminology, because it occurs in the same chain with the word hrwt. The law (hrwt) is the main concept and the statute ( qj) means all the single orders of the law. qjw ˆwyl[ trwt l[ περὶ νόμου ὑψίστου καὶ διαθήκης The Greek translator has once again intentionally rendered qj as διαθήκη, and, accordingly, the modern translations often follow the reading: “. . . about the law and the covenant of the Most High.”38 However, the Greek translator was probably not a theologian, such that he would have thought about the covenant at this point. Rather, it is more likely that he used διαθήκη in the sense of ‘decree.’ It is a meaning that is so often attested when the verb διατίθημι is put into question.

36 “Die Beobachtung, daß hrwt und qj / hqj in der Priesterschrift, bei Ez. und Mal. ziemlich gleichbedeutend sind, wird [. . .] von der lxx her bestätigt” (Hentschke, Satzung, 110). 37 The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscripts B and M. 38 nrsv (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990): “Do not be ashamed of the law of the Most High and his covenant.” Nearly the same wording in neb (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970): “Do not be ashamed of the law and covenant of the Most High.” A similar translation technique is employed even in the ecumenical French translation: “N’aie pas honte de la loi du Très-Haut et de l’alliance” (tob [ Paris: Cerf, 1975]).

“statute”

or “covenant”?

83

e) Sir 44:2039 The rest of the occurrences stem from Ben Sira’s extensive composition, “The Praise of the Ancestors” (44–50). The first one will be encountered in 44:20. This is truly an interesting verse, because it uses in its first stichos the word tyrb, and in the latter part the word qj. V. 44:20a

wm[ tyrbb abw ˆwyl[ twxm rmç rça ὅς συνετήρησεν νόμον ὑψίστου καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν διαθήκῃ μετ’ αὐτοῦ

V. 44:20b

ˆman axmn ywsynbw qj wl trk wrçbb ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ ἔστησεν διαθήκην καὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός.

The Greek Ben Sira translates here both qj and tyrb with διαθήκη. Particularly fascinating is the combination qj trk in v. 20b that does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, the expression trk tyrb is common in most parts of the Old Testament, though the Priestly Work intentionally avoids it and favours the form tyrb μyqh or tyrb ˆtn.40 Probably the original Hebrew form of Ben Sira implies that qj comes semantically very close to tyrb. What we have in 44:20 is clearly a legal context, because v. 20 even includes the term twxm that can be so frequently perceived in the same context with qj.41 An interesting question concerns the possible terminological connections between Sir 44:20 and the stories of Abraham in the Pentateuch. The texts that serve as the background for Sir 44:20 are especially Gen 15 and Gen 17:1–14. It is noteworthy that the verb trk (‘to cut’) is not used in Gen 17 where the commandment to circumcise all the male infants and slaves is given. Instead, the technical term lwm (Niph.) is used. Thus, it seems that it was already Ben Sira’s intention to bring his own construction qj trk close to the more ‘traditional’ utterance trk tyrb. The difference between qj and tyrb is oscillating at this particular point. It is no wonder that, in this particular verse, the grandson has rendered both qj and tyrb as διαθήκη.

The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B. John Day, “Why Does God ‘Establish’ rather than ‘Cut’ Covenants in the Priestly Source?” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson (ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 91–106. 41 Hentschke, Satzung, 82–83, 91–95; Braulik, “Ausdrücke,” 24–32. At least Deuteronomy usually connects these terms. 39 40

84

marko marttila f ) Sir 45:542

This verse belongs in ‘Laus Patrum’ to the presentation of Moses. Ben Sira faithfully follows the texts of Exodus and Deuteronomy that have served as his sources, and in 45:5, according to this model, Ben Sira combines together several terms that all indicate laws or prescriptions. hnwbtw μyyj trwt hwxm wdyb μçyw larçyl wyfpçmw wytwd[w wyqj bq[yb dmll The Hebrew text attempts to say that it was the duty of Moses to teach the statutes (wyqj) of the law to Jacob. It is interesting to find out how the Greek translator has succeeded in translating so many legal terms in succession. καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἐντολάς, νόμον ζωῆς καὶ ἐπιστήμη, διδάξαι τὸν Ιακωβ διαθήκην καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ τὸν Ισραηλ.

In the end, the translator clarifies one difficulty and renders the Hebrew word pair wyfpçmw wytwd[w in a more concise manner: καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ. It is noteworthy that the translator attributes to the duties of Moses the teaching of the ‘διαθήκη’ to Jacob. The Hebrew text of Ben Sira does not mention the theological term ‘covenant’ in connection with Moses. Certainly, ‘covenant’ is an inconvenient rendering of διαθήκη at this point, because an expression such as ‘to teach the covenant’ is somehow difficult to understand. The grandson must have meant something else when using the word διαθήκη in his translation. Once again, the meaning ‘decree’ fits well into the context. As we can see, the grandson is faithful to his parental Hebrew text, because for him διαθήκη means ‘decree,’ as does qj in Hebrew. g) Sir 45:743 Ben Sira turns in 45:6 from Moses to praise Aaron’s splendour. The Hebrew text mentions in v. 7 how God put upon Aaron ‘an eternal lot.’ μlw[ qjl whmyçyw ἔστησεν αὐτὸν διαθήκην αἰῶνος

42 43

The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B. The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B.

“statute”

or “covenant”?

85

In this case, the solution found by the Greek translator is understandable, even from a theological perspective, because the Hebrew text mentions, in connection with Aaron’s presentation, that God made an everlasting covenant with Aaron and his descendants.44 This reference occurs in 45:15, where the Hebrew text uses the expression μlw[ tyrb (Gr. εἰς διαθήκην αἰῶνος). In any case, the concepts ‘eternal lot’ and ‘eternal covenant’ come very close to each other in this context. The use of διαθήκη can be here understood from its profane meaning of ‘ordinance’ as well. God made Aaron’s office perpetual, thus there was a divine order beyond the priestly institution. As in Sir 14:17, the grandson also here deviates from the usual way of rendering μlw[ qj that would have otherwise been rendered νόμιμον αἰώνιον. h) Sir 45:1745 This verse provides us with several legal terms that are linked together. According to Ben Sira, it was Aaron who was permitted to receive God’s commandments, and it was Aaron’s mission to interpret, teach and transmit them to the people of Israel. Ben Sira thus tends to promote Aaron’s significance to such a degree that some of those tasks and duties that belonged to Moses become Aaron’s assignments. Comparison between the Hebrew and the Greek text is particularly interesting because the Hebrew form of v. 17 includes the word qj twice. As Di Lella mentions, the references in Sir 45:17 are to texts such as Deut 17:8–12; 33:8–10.46 fpçmw qwjb whlyçmyw wytwxm wl ˆtyw larçy ynb ta fpçmw qj wm[ ta dmlyw Now the Greek translator truly surprises us with the equivalents he has chosen. The first qj he renders as διαθήκη (which occurs here in the plural for the first time in the Greek Ben Sira), but the second qj is translated as τὰ μαρτύρια: ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐν ἐντολαῖς αὐτοῦ ἐξουσίαν ἐν διαθήκαις κριμάτων διδάξαι τὸν Ιακωβ τὰ μαρτύρια καὶ ἐν νόμῳ αὐτοῦ φωτίσαι Ισραηλ.

44 The New Revised Standard Version translates Sir 45:7 as follows: “He made an everlasting covenant with him.” 45 The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B. 46 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 512–13.

86

marko marttila

This case is difficult to evaluate, because the Greek translation is far from literal at this point. Especially, the B-stichos differs remarkably from the Hebrew text. At least, the first occurrence of διαθήκη could well have been used in the sense of ‘decree,’ because it occurs in a legal context together with other legal terms. i) Sir 45:2447 This verse forms an exception among the cases we are dealing with, because although the Hebrew text includes qj, it is not directly translated into Greek. It is possible that the Vorlage used by the translator differed from the Hebrew text that we know today. Another explanation is that the translator has intentionally combined in his mind the words tyrb and qj, because they seem to be synonyms for him throughout the translation.48 Therefore it has been sufficient to translate both Hebrew terms with a single Greek word: διαθήκη.49 çdqm lklkl μwlç tyrb qj μyqh wl μg ˆkl διὰ τοῦτο ἐστάθη αὐτῷ διαθήκη εἰρήνης προστατεῖν ἁγίων καὶ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ

The expression ‘covenant of peace’ (μwlç tyrb) is originally taken from Num 25:12.50 j) Sir 47:1151 Ben Sira begins to describe David at the beginning of Ch. 47, but he has already mentioned earlier that God made a covenant with David (Sir 45:25), and, by virtue of this covenant, God gave kingship to David’s offspring. The Hebrew text of Sir 45:25 uses the term tyrb but it is not mentioned in 47:11 which preserves a different wording. tklmm qj wl ˆt?yw¿ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ διαθήκην βασιλέων Precisely, the Hebrew text speaks of the ‘lot of kingship’ or the ‘decree of kingship,’ but a covenant as such is not in question. In this respect, Ben Sira is faithful to his background text, because the divine promise The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B. Wright, No Small Difference, 180. 49 “Since the two words are regularly rendered with διαθήκη, the translator wanted to avoid using the same word twice.” Wright, Ibid., 180. 50 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 513. 51 The Hebrew text of this verse is preserved in Manuscript B. 47 48

“statute”

or “covenant”?

87

transmitted by Nathan about David’s dynasty in 2Sam 7 does not contain the term tyrb.52 The translator definitely understood that David belonged to those biblical figures with whom God made a covenant, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew text. The translation may at this point contain clear theologization, if it is understood in the sense of ‘covenant,’ but it can also be fathomed as referring to ‘decree.’ 3. Conclusions On the basis of the analysis above, some conclusions can be drawn. First of all, it is evident that Ben Sira’s grandson did not slavishly follow the lxx translations prior to him. Even in the case of some fixed sayings—such as μlw[ qj / νόμιμον αἰώνιον—the grandson went his own path and produced translations that differed from the usual practice. Therefore, it is no wonder that the grandson has ten times rendered the Hebrew term qj with the Greek διαθήκη—a phenomenon that cannot be encountered elsewhere in the lxx. It is possible that Ben Sira’s grandson regarded the Hebrew terms tyrb and qj as identical to such a degree that they both could be rendered with the same equivalent διαθήκη. This explanation is especially plausible when the Hebrew parental text contains sentences where the difference between qj and tyrb is rather marginal. In fact, in some passages it seems that even Ben Sira himself has used these Hebrew expressions almost synonymously (for instance in Sir 44:20), and it has provided a good basis for the Greek translator to continue this kind of interpretation in various contexts. Furthermore, it seems obvious that the translation the grandson provided was influenced by the manner in which the term διαθήκη was used in the Classical Greek, often in profane literature. Denoting ‘treaty,’ ‘ordinance,’ ‘disposition’ or ‘decree’ διαθήκη comes close to those meanings that the Hebrew word qj contains. Though διαθήκη is found to be a strongly religious concept with its covenant-theological allusions in both the lxx and in the Greek New Testament, it is also possible to encounter this word in its mundane sense; indeed, the Greek version of Ben Sira is a fine example of this. 52 Timo Veijola, Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand der 89. Psalms (AASF B 220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), 67–69.

PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES IN THE SEPTUAGINT OF EZEKIEL* Katrin Hauspie Instead of simple prepositions the lxx frequently uses periphrases, formed by means of nouns denoting a part of the body, e.g. κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς instead of ἐπί or πρό. They correspond to prepositions like ynEy[el,] ynEp]li in Hebrew: these combinations of a preposition and a noun, mostly denoting a part of the body, are equal to a preposition. Brockelmann1 and Sollamo2 call them ‘Halbpräpositionen’ and ‘semiprepositions’; Jenni uses the term ‘Sekundärpräpositionen’.3 Waltke-O’Connor classify the Hebrew prepositions in three categories according to their formal appearance: simple prepositions, compound prepositions and complex prepositions.4 The prepositions under discussion belong to the complex prepositions: they are composed of one or more prepositions and a noun, e.g. dy"B,] or an adverb, e.g. ˆ['m'l.] We prefer, in accordance with Sollamo, the term semiprepositions. The noun figuring in these semiprepositions denotes a part of the body and is used metonymically: in dy"B,] the word dy", does not denote the physical hand.5 The whole expression functions as a preposition indicating the instrument, applied to a person and freed from any allusion to the physical hand.

* This article is based on my doctoral dissertation: “La version de la Septante d’Ézéchiel: traduction annotée d’Ez 1–24 et étude du grec d’Ézéchiel par une sélection de particularités lexicales et grammaticales” (Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2002), 283–312: “Locutions prépositives” (promotor: Prof. Dr. Willy Clarysse, co-promotor: Prof. Dr. Johan Lust). 1 Carl Brockelmann, Syntax (vol. 2 of Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen; Berlin: Reuther und Reichard, 1913), 383: “Wie bi so wird auch la öfter mit Nomm. verbunden, die in dieser Zusammensetzung ihren konkreten Bedeutungsinhalt einbüssen und zu Halbpräpositionen herabsinken.” 2 Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 1–2. In her article “Some ‘improper’ prepositions, such as ἐνώπιον, ἐναντίον, ἔναντι, etc., in the Septuagint and early koine Greek” (VT 25 [1975]: 773) she calls them half-prepositions. 3 Ernst Jenni, Die Präposition Beth (vol. 1 of idem., Die hebräischen Präpositionen; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 122, 214. 4 B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 189, 220–21. 5 The idea of metonymical use is borrowed from Jenni, Beth, 122.

90

katrin hauspie

We call the corresponding expression in the lxx a prepositional phrase, in agreement with Sollamo. We do not use the term physiognomical expressions, utilised by Thackeray,6 as it does not cover the whole scope of our research. Thackeray means by this term, as the term suggests, expressions referring to different parts of the body (hand, eye, face), whereas in our research μέσον too gives rise to a prepositional phrase (Thackeray does not mention these latter cases). We define prepositional phrase as follows: a phrase composed of a preposition and a noun followed by a genitive, the noun being used metonymically or whose referential sense has weakened or even disappeared; the whole group functions as a simple preposition. As far as syntax is concerned, expressions like κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, ἀπὸ προσώπου etc., behave like prepositions governing the genitive, and therefore ‘prepositional’ is preferred in the terminology. On the formal level such a prepositional phrase is not distinguished from an identical combination of preposition and noun, functioning as a local determination, where the noun keeps its literal or metaphorical sense, e.g. τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς σοῦ ἐκζητήσω or πίπτω ἐπὶ πρόσωπόν μου; these latter cases fall outside the scope of our research. The Hebrew semiprepositions are translated in different ways in the lxx: literally, e.g. yny[l by κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, by improper prepositions, e.g. ynpl by κατέναντι,7 or by true prepositions. Sollamo has studied thoroughly the rendering of the Hebrew semiprepositions in the lxx.8 This excellent study is at the basis of our examination of the prepositional phrases in the lxx of Ezekiel. Sollamo starts from the Hebrew semipreposition, and puts all corresponding translations of the lxx into a table, book by book. By doing so she tries to reveal the translation technique of the different translators. Further, she compares the lxx translations to Classical and Koine Greek. We do not intend to redo this meticulous work. Our starting point is reading the lxx of Ezekiel, in which we set apart the prepositional phrases, not because they are inappropriate or incorrect, but because they surprise the Greek reader. It is our point of interest to investigate how these surprising expressions could have been understood by a Greek-speaking reader. Our

Henry St. John Thackeray, Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (vol. 1 of A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Cambridge: University Press, 1909), 42–45. 7 Sollamo, “Prepositions,” 773–82. 8 Sollamo, Semiprepositions. 6

prepositional phrases in the septuagint of ezekiel

91

results pertaining to the book of Ezekiel most of the time confirm the conclusions Sollamo reached on the book of Ezekiel, but sometimes they may contradict, nuance or refine them. I am honoured to contribute to the Festschrift of Raija Sollamo with an article that elaborates on her own research, on the prepositions. Κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς with Genitive Κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς is the only prepositional phrase composed with ὀφθαλμούς in the lxx of Ezekiel, corresponding to ynEy[el] in the mt. The corresponding translations of ynEy[el] in the lxx are (mainly) limited to κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, ἐνώπιον and ἐναντίον (ἔναντι), meaning ‘before’, ‘in the presence of ’.9 The lxx generally renders ynEy[el] in a rather literal and constant way: the Pentateuch prefers the improper prepositions ἐνώπιον and ἐναντίον (ἔναντι), while the other books also use periphrases with ὀφθαλμούς, especially κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς. Sollamo speaks of a stereotyping tendency in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, because ynEy[el] is translated in at least half of the cases by the same word or expression in one and the same book of the lxx.10 For Genesis, Exodus and Numbers the translation is even perfectly consistent, as ynEy[el] has only one equivalent in each of these books. The book of Ezekiel is characterised, as the only one in the lxx, by the striking presence of two types of translation: ἐνώπιον (18 over 31, thus stereotyped translation according to Sollamo) and κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς (9 times). There is no rationale behind the choice between ἐνώπιον and κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, nor is there a clear demarcation between chapters preferring one translation over the other: Ezek 12, 20 and 21 use ἐνώπιον (Ezek 12:4; 20:14, 22, 41; 21:6) and κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς (Ezek 12:3, 5, 6, 7; 20:9, 14, 22; 21:23) alongside one another, even in the same sentence. Neither did the mt influence the translator’s choice: ynEy[el] with suffix and with noun is indiscriminately rendered by ἐνώπιον as well as by κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς. The verb does not determine some translation or another: e.g. ἁγιάζομαι is followed by κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς in Ezek 20:41; 36:22 and by ἐνώπιον in Ezek 28:25; 38:16; 39:27. It should be noted that ἐξήγαγον αὐτούς (Ezek 20:14, 22) and ἐξοίσεις τὰ σκεύη σου (Ezek 12:4) are construed with κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς: both verbs

9 10

Sollamo, Semiprepositions, 148, table 16; what follows is based on p. 147. Sollamo, Semiprepositions, 13.

92

katrin hauspie

correspond to the hiphil of axy in the mt. Ἐπ᾽ ὤμων ἀναλημφθήσῃ is twice construed with ἐνώπιον (Ezek 12:6, 7) and ἐμετεωρίσθησαν once (Ezek 10:19) for the verb acn and ynEy[el] in the mt. Τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ παράπαν μὴ βεβηλωθῇ is thrice construed with ἐνώπιον (Ezek 20:9, 14, 22) for the verb llj and ynEy[el] in the mt. The verb ποιέω (Ezek 12:3; 16:41) is construed with ἐνώπιον for hc[ and ynEy[el] in the mt. In almost all cases both translations appear one beside the other in the same chapter. The translator probably opted for variation in the rendering of ynEy[el] (he did not systematically use one expression), although some verbs are linked with the same preposition or prepositional phrase. Prepositional Phrases Composed with πρόσωπον Except for κατὰ πρόσωπον, none of the expressions composed with πρόσωπον and followed by the genitive is a common wording in Greek to express a preposition. They all copy a Hebrew semipreposition involving hn

Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo

Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, Vol. 126)

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Bible And the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Vol 1: Scripture and the Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The complete Dead Sea scrolls in English

Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSOT Supplement Series)

Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (3 Vol Set)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Deciphering The Dead Sea Scrolls

Apocalypticism In The Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls Series)

Equality, Participation, Transition: Essays in Honour of Branko Horvat

The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum)

Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning

Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls

A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature)

It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF

Prayer and poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related literature : essays on prayer and poetry in the Dead Sea scrolls and related literature in honor of Eileen Schuller on the occasion of her 65th birthday

Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible

Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible

The Dead Sea Scrolls In Context (2 Volume Set)

The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition

Dead Sea Scrolls. A Very Short Introduction

The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity

Scripture in transition: essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea scrolls in honour of Raija Sollamo